Swedish cartoonist attacked by Muslims

[(((Fergus)))]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdyKmzEdHws

From Sweden's The Local http://www.thelocal.se/26590/20100511/

Artist Lars Vilks, who caused controversy by drawing cartoons that depicted the prophet Muhammad as a dog, has been attacked while giving a lecture at Uppsala University.

Vilks, who has been the subject of numerous death threats, was attacked while speaking at the university’s philosophy faculty on Tuesday afternoon. He was not badly hurt.

“The man was sitting in the front row and suddenly came rushing towards me. He headbutted me, and I was thrown against the wall and dropped my glasses,” he said.

According to local newspaper Uppsala Nya Tidning, the atmosphere in the lecture theatre became rowdy after Vilks showed a film with sexual content.

“A crowd of people pushed forward. When a police officer tried to stop them he was hit. As things stand, two people have been arrested,” said police commander Tommy Karlsson.

Vilks was taken to a secure location following the attack.

“I have not been injured, just a bit knocked about,” he said.

[khib70]

Artist Lars Vilks, who caused controversy by drawing cartoons that depicted the prophet Muhammad as a dog, has been attacked while giving a lecture at Uppsala University.

Vilks, who has been the subject of numerous death threats, was attacked while speaking at the university’s philosophy faculty on Tuesday afternoon. He was not badly hurt.

“The man was sitting in the front row and suddenly came rushing towards me. He headbutted me, and I was thrown against the wall and dropped my glasses,” he said.

According to local newspaper Uppsala Nya Tidning, the atmosphere in the lecture theatre became rowdy after Vilks showed a film with sexual content.

“A crowd of people pushed forward. When a police officer tried to stop them he was hit. As things stand, two people have been arrested,” said police commander Tommy Karlsson.

Vilks was taken to a secure location following the attack.

“I have not been injured, just a bit knocked about,” he said.
Expect Liverpool Hibs any minute to explain that the situation was much more complicated than that, and that you are grossly oversimplifying it.

Mr Vilks clearly attacked himself in order to discredit the Islamic religion and advance the cause of Zionist neo-colonialism.........(cont p97)

[(((Fergus)))]

Sorry, meant to post the video...

[lyonhibs]

Expect Liverpool Hibs any minute to explain that the situation was much more complicated than that, and that you are grossly oversimplifying it.

Mr Vilks clearly attacked himself in order to discredit the Islamic religion and advance the cause of Zionist neo-colonialism.........(cont p97)


:faf: :faf:

It's not the cleverest (nor funniest) thing to do - this cartoon depicting habit that the Scandinavian arty types seem to be developing for a spiritual figure of one of the world's biggest religions - but it doesn't half show how rabidly deranged, humourless and undemocratic (if you think "Free speech" is compromised from time to time in the UK.......................) these "devout Muslims" (as they would want us to believe) are.

[HibsMax]

Such a peaceful bunch...

[MyJo]

at least they didn't try and blow him up :rolleyes:

[Dinkydoo]

Could have been much worse than a headbutt IMO, still though, there's nae need for it. :rolleyes:

[Pretty Boy]

I'm not wanting to get involved in this too much as i recently had a major falling out with someone on another forum i use regarding the recent South Park/Mohammed controversy.

All i will say is that sacred figures from every major religion(and some minor ones) are lampooned and satirised regularly in cartoon form or otherwise. The Muslim response, IMO, always seems disproportionate to the 'crime' commited. Mohammed being depicted in a bear suit on South park led to death threats and a potential, though unproven, link to a bombing in Times Square. Jesus is a recurring character on South Park and has been depicted in numerous compromising situations, Moses is depicted as a giant holographic head FFS. There have naturally been complaints and protests from Christian and Jewish groups but nothing on the scale of physical violence, whether implied or actual.

Perhaps it's time for 'radical' Muslims to realise there are better ways to get a point accross than violence and for the majority moderate groups to be far more open and vocal in their condemnation of the extremist elements.

[hibsdaft]

Such a peaceful bunch...

that's where you cross the line imo.

this case was 1/2 warped religious fundamentalist lunatics acting on their own. all religions have them. you seem to be making a sarcastic comment covering all muslims. please confirm what you meant.

as someone based in the US you'll know better than most on here about the psychopathic violence inflicted by fundamentalists of many religions - e.g. doctors murdered for administering abortions etc.

[Woody1985]

Does anyone know why the Tory MP, Bhatti (sp), decided that it would be appropriate to wear muslim dress to parliament on her first day?

I know that she is the first muslim MP in government but after all, I thought it didn't matter what race or religion people are.

FWIW, I thought she was very knowledgeable and polished when she was on QT and quite liked her.

However, I think that she's tried to make a statement and think it's silly.

[Pretty Boy]

Does anyone know why the Tory MP, Bhatti (sp), decided that it would be appropriate to wear muslim dress to parliament on her first day?

I know that she is the first muslim MP in government but after all, I thought it didn't matter what race or religion people are.

FWIW, I thought she was very knowledgeable and polished when she was on QT and quite liked her.

However, I think that she's tried to make a statement and think it's silly.

Mohammed Sarwar?:confused:

[dawn]

Mohammed Sarwar?:confused:

He was deffo first male, 1997 IIRC. I thought there were a few Muslim women voted in as MPs this election?

[(((Fergus)))]

Does anyone know why the Tory MP, Bhatti (sp), decided that it would be appropriate to wear muslim dress to parliament on her first day?

I know that she is the first muslim MP in government but after all, I thought it didn't matter what race or religion people are.

FWIW, I thought she was very knowledgeable and polished when she was on QT and quite liked her.

However, I think that she's tried to make a statement and think it's silly.

Could have been worse. I believe she is/was a belly-dancer in her spare time. :wink:

EDIT: Must have been someone else as Bhatti didn't win her seat.

[khib70]

Such a peaceful bunch...

Pussycats, really

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/danish_cartoon_protest.jpg

[hibsdaft]

He was deffo first male, 1997 IIRC. I thought there were a few Muslim women voted in as MPs this election?

three, all Labour. i think Woody means the first female muslim in cabinet? which is Sayeeda Warsi, who's been on QT before and speaks a lot of sense on race and integration, and has been attacked by islamic fundamentalist lunatics for it.

---------- Post added at 03:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 PM ----------


Pussycats, really

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/danish_cartoon_protest.jpg

who?

[(((Fergus)))]

Swedish guy tells the miuslims to be quiet and gets called a "jew-whore"

YouTube - Lars vilks attack: Aftermath part 2, Innocent attacked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qnF2FndMTs&feature=related)

What have the jews got to do with Swedish cartoons?

EDIT

Start of this video shows the material they went mental at

YouTube - Lars vilks attack: Aftermath part 2, Innocent attacked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qnF2FndMTs&feature=related)

A bit childish?

[One Day Soon]

Topper. Western European nations really need to decide whether we believe in full free speech or not. If we do then people are going to be allowed to articulate stupid and challenging opinions. That goes for whether they want to depict someone else's god as an animal or teapot or whatever and it goes for their right to criticise the actions and views of those who articulate such opinions.

What we can't have is debate or difference that is mediated by violence, aggression and the stifling of opinion by force. The mob - and it looks like a mob in the links above - is just the lowest of the low.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Someone should really acquaint Mr. Vilks with the thoughts of a fellow Scandinavian, although one of such greater worth that it's barely conceivable.

"People demand freedom of speech as compensation for freedom of thought, which they rarely use."

It's nothing whatsoever to do with people being 'rabidly deranged, humourless and undemocratic' it's about a man whose entire modus operandi is to engage in attempts to whip up racial and religious hatred (particularly given that the chosen recipients of the attacks are a supremely precariously positioned section of society) under the canard of 'freedom of speech' receiving the backlash from doing so. Which is not, of course, to say that the attack was remotely justified - it absolutely was not. It's a bit of a concern that I have to say that as unequivocally as possible...

Freedom of speech is a fantastic thing to have, it's less of a fantastic thing when worthless 'artists' like Vilks *******ise it as a means to provide cover for a near pathological desire to offend a particular minority group.

That apart, the various responses on this thread are depressingly unsurprising.


Expect Liverpool Hibs any minute to explain that the situation was much more complicated than that, and that you are grossly oversimplifying it.

Mr Vilks clearly attacked himself in order to discredit the Islamic religion and advance the cause of Zionist neo-colonialism.........(cont p97)

Ah yes, that's right. If you find yourself incapable of properly responding to criticism of your posts, resort to completely unrelated, snide and monumentally unfunny comments in a different thread entirely. Good job!


Pussycats, really

[/URL][url]http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/danish_cartoon_protest.jpg (http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/danish_cartoon_protest.jpg)

Crikey, and to think you previously objected to being called an Islamophobic racist...

[bighairyfaeleith]

Someone should really acquaint Mr. Vilks with the thoughts of a fellow Scandinavian, although one of such greater worth that it's barely conceivable.

"People demand freedom of speech as compensation for freedom of thought, which they rarely use."

It's nothing whatsoever to do with people being 'rabidly deranged, humourless and undemocratic' it's about a man whose entire modus operandi is to engage in attempts to whip up racial and religious hatred (particularly given that the chosen recipients of the attacks are a supremely precariously positioned section of society) under the canard of 'freedom of speech' receiving the backlash from doing so. Which is not, of course, to say that the attack was remotely justified - it absolutely was not. It's a bit of a concern that I have to say that as unequivocally as possible...

Freedom of speech is a fantastic thing to have, it's less of a fantastic thing when worthless 'artists' like Vilks *******ise it as a means to provide cover for a near pathological desire to offend a particular minority group.

That apart, the various responses on this thread are depressingly unsurprising.



Ah yes, that's right. If you find yourself incapable of properly responding to criticism of your posts, resort to completely unrelated, snide and monumentally unfunny comments in a different thread entirely. Good job!



Crikey, and to think you previously objected to being called an Islamophobic racist...

Do you not think though that muslims should just ignore him? By attacking him he gains publicity. Would we even be discussing him otherwise?

I haven't seen his drawings, I'm not really interested but I do think that muslims need to calm themselves down a bit and learn to interact more with other religions and beliefs. Now the vast majority do appear to do this, I just wish the minority could see that violence will never solve the problem.

Unfortunately I don't see it happening anytime soon and I fear the friction between muslims and the rest of the world will get worse as the minority get more and more extreme. Hope to hell I'm wrong

[Sir David Gray]

I'm not wanting to get involved in this too much as i recently had a major falling out with someone on another forum i use regarding the recent South Park/Mohammed controversy.

All i will say is that sacred figures from every major religion(and some minor ones) are lampooned and satirised regularly in cartoon form or otherwise. The Muslim response, IMO, always seems disproportionate to the 'crime' commited. Mohammed being depicted in a bear suit on South park led to death threats and a potential, though unproven, link to a bombing in Times Square. Jesus is a recurring character on South Park and has been depicted in numerous compromising situations, Moses is depicted as a giant holographic head FFS. There have naturally been complaints and protests from Christian and Jewish groups but nothing on the scale of physical violence, whether implied or actual.

Perhaps it's time for 'radical' Muslims to realise there are better ways to get a point accross than violence and for the majority moderate groups to be far more open and vocal in their condemnation of the extremist elements.

:agree: That pretty much sums things up for me.

Although I'm not exactly thrilled to see and hear people mocking Jesus and Christianity, if they want to do it then they should be allowed that freedom. Depending on how I was feeling, I might publicly protest against it but I certainly wouldn't go out looking for revenge against those responsible or physically harm them in any way. I am quite sure that the vast majority of Christians would take the same view. I really cannot remember hearing about a single incident, in recent times, where someone has lost their life because of comments that they have made about Jesus or Christianity.

However, unfortunately that is not how a large proportion of Muslims see things. Whenever Muhammad or Islam is made fun of in any way, the entire Muslim world is whipped up into a frenzy over it and people have been killed because of comments that they have made about the religion. The lucky ones escape with having to go into hiding and having round-the-clock security looking after them. You only need to look at the outcry surrounding the cartoons and the various people who have been targeted as a result of them being published. There is the man in this thread who has been assaulted and had several death threats aimed in his direction, there is also the despicable attack on an elderly Danish man at the start of this year who was threatened by a man wielding an axe and a knife after he had broken into his home whilst he was there with his young granddaughter. Also, who can forget the barbaric murder of Theo Van Gogh in 2004? He had made a short film earlier that year, that was critical of Islam and in return he was shot eight times, stabbed at least twice and his killer also attempted to decapitate him.

On a slightly different note regarding people being subjected to violence by religious extremists because of their job (i.e. abortion doctors etc), I am actually quite glad this came up. Apart from a few exceptions, such as the vile Westboro Baptist Church in the USA, I am not aware of many Church ministers who actively encourage their congregation to go out and murder or harm people because they are not Christians or because they are actually against Christianity or because they take part in things that are arguably against the teachings of the Bible, such as abortion or homosexual behaviour. Yes, you get Christians who will go out and publicly state that they believe certain things are against the teachings of God but then I think that is their right to do that, just as it is also someone's right to state in public that they think Christianity is a load of nonsense.

However, I have heard of quite a number of instances, in the UK alone, where mosques have been used as recruitment centres for potential terrorists and the worshippers have been told about how bad the West is and how we are the infidels and must be defeated. Many hundreds of people each year are murdered in attacks by Muslim terrorists all over the world, either working as part of a larger group or by themselves.

Don't get me wrong, there is a very large Muslim population in this country that live here peacefully, go about their daily lives without bothering anyone and are a very positive influence on society. So I'm not trying to say that all Muslims fit the description that I have given above because that wouldn't be true.

I just wish that the more volatile members of the Islamic community could find a slightly more moderate way to deal with people criticising, and poking fun at, their faith. Preferably methods that don't include suicide bombings, decapitations and general intimidatory behaviour that in turn causes fear and distrust across the wider Western world.

[hibsdaft]

Although I'm not exactly thrilled to see and hear people mocking Jesus and Christianity, if they want to do it then they should be allowed that freedom. Depending on how I was feeling, I might publicly protest against it

do you not see a slight contradiction there?

re: the rest of yr point: history says that Christians were happy for blasphemers to be punished by death in the UK, and for blasphemy to be illegal. when the tide turned following the enlightenment these laws were gradually overturned. while the Church was able to retain them however, they showed every desire to.

if they could bring them back tomorrow they would in a flash.

[hibsbollah]

worthless 'artists' like Vilks *******ise it as a means to provide cover for a near pathological desire to offend a particular minority group

The problem with that is how do you define what is 'worthless' art and what is not? I thought 'Jerry Springer the Opera' was fantastic satire and 'art', but I recognise it has the capacity to offend people. If the Christian Voice accuses the Jerry Springer producers of 'a near pathological desire to offend a particular minority group', all it represents is their inability to appreciate the artist. The same applies to caricaturing Mohammed.

[One Day Soon]

do you not see a slight contradiction there?

re: the rest of yr point: history says that Christians were happy for blasphemers to be punished by death in the UK, and for blasphemy to be illegal. when the tide turned following the enlightenment these laws were gradually overturned. while the Church was able to retain them however, they showed every desire to.

if they could bring them back tomorrow they would in a flash.

I think there is very little evidence, if any, to support that claim.

[LiverpoolHibs]

The problem with that is how do you define what is 'worthless' art and what is not? I thought 'Jerry Springer the Opera' was fantastic satire and 'art', but I recognise it has the capacity to offend people. If the Christian Voice accuses the Jerry Springer producers of 'a near pathological desire to offend a particular minority group', all it represents is their inability to appreciate the artist. The same applies to caricaturing Mohammed.

Well, it's pretty simple. You look at each piece that comes out and you judge its motivation, its intent and its worth as a piece of art.

If you look at the cartoons published in the Jyllands-Posten and the cartoon by Vilks published in Sweden there is absolutely nothing there, nothing whatsoever. All they are are gratuitous attempts to offend for the sake of offending and sometimes veering into outright racism with essentialised, Orientalist charicatures of the stereotypical Arab. Bomb - check, burqa - check, hook nosed - check, implied violence - check.

The Jerry Springer the Opera comparison is a false one. As it was never concerned with just being an attempt to provoke and offend a precariously positioned group in European society purely for the sake of provoking and offending them. Jerry Springer... took Judeo-Christian images that were already in the public sphere and which Christian Churches had traded on for centuries and subverted/satirised them. The 'Muhammed cartoonists' took something that had been rigorously protected and policed by Muslims for centuries and basically said, "You can't do this, but we in the liberal, enlightened West can! Hahahahaha! Look at us go! How do you like that!?"

Also, the tendency to see the reaction to whichever 'Muhammed cartoon' controversy as one of Muslims being super-offended at the simple fact of having Muhammed displayed pictorially is, I think, again false (and also, I think, a further example of a Western Orientalist desire to explain something that they actually do not actually understand). The fact that a Danish delegation to the Arab League in the wake of the Jyllands-Posten publications produced enormous displays of the cartoons for the rest of the League suggests that this was not the main problem. The problem was that they were symptomatic of, and contributed to, a tide of Islamophobia and immigrant-bashing in Western Europe.

[One Day Soon]

Well, it's pretty simple. You look at each piece that comes out and you judge its motivation, its intent and its worth as a piece of art.

If you look at the cartoons published in the Jyllands-Posten and the cartoon by Vilks published in Sweden there is absolutely nothing there, nothing whatsoever. All they are are gratuitous attempts to offend for the sake of offending and sometimes veering into outright racism with essentialised, Orientalist charicatures of the stereotypical Arab. Bomb - check, burqa - check, hook nosed - check, implied violence - check.

The Jerry Springer the Opera comparison is a false one. As it was never concerned with just being an attempt to provoke and offend a precariously positioned group in European society purely for the sake of provoking and offending them. Jerry Springer... took Judeo-Christian images that were already in the public sphere and which Christian Churches had traded on for centuries and subverted/satirised them. The 'Muhammed cartoonists' took something that had been rigorously protected and policed by Muslims for centuries and basically said, "You can't do this, but we in the liberal, enlightened West can! Hahahahaha! Look at us go! How do you like that!?"

Also, the tendency to see the reaction to whichever 'Muhammed cartoon' controversy as one of Muslims being super-offended at the simple fact of having Muhammed displayed pictorially is, I think, again false (and also, I think, a further example of a Western Orientalist desire to explain something that they actually do not actually understand). The fact that a Danish delegation to the Arab League in the wake of the Jyllands-Posten publications produced enormous displays of the cartoons for the rest of the League suggests that this was not the main problem. The problem was that they were symptomatic of, and contributed to, a tide of Islamophobia and immigrant-bashing in Western Europe.

The problem with that is all interpretations of art are entirely subjective. Added to which you either have freedom of speech or you do not.

To cut to the chase, should these guys have the right to create and publish their cartoons or should they not?

[LiverpoolHibs]

The problem with that is all interpretations of art are entirely subjective. Added to which you either have freedom of speech or you do not.

To cut to the chase, should these guys have the right to create and publish their cartoons or should they not?

Well first, what do you mean by 'all interpretations of art are entirely subjective'? Everyone will, by definition, have their own subjective reaction to a piece of art (or a piece of non-art in this case), but it doesn't mean that each of those is equally correct or worthwhile.

[One Day Soon]

Well first, what do you mean by 'all interpretations of art are entirely subjective'? Everyone will, by definition, have their own subjective reaction to a piece of art (or a piece of non-art in this case), but it doesn't mean that each of those is equally correct or worthwhile.

I'm afraid that's exactly what it means. Otherwise you are saying that a person's opinion is not actually their opinion, which would be nonsensical.

To go back to my question - should these guys have the right to create and publish their cartoons or should they not?

[LiverpoolHibs]

I'm afraid that's exactly what it means. Otherwise you are saying that a person's opinion is not actually their opinion, which would be nonsensical.

You don't really believe that do you!?

Just to pick an example at random. Two people read Orwell's 'Animal Farm', one of them gets the allegory while the other thinks it's an amusing tale of what some talking farm-yard animals get up to. Both of those are equally worthwhile and correct views of the work of art?

Why would it have anything to do with 'saying a person's opinion is not actually their opinion'?


To go back to my question - should these guys have the right to create and publish their cartoons or should they not?

Of course they have the right to create their cartoons and to publish them if they wish to (as long as they do not over-step existing legal boundaries over incitement and the like). However, national newspapers have no obligation to publish them for them.

[hibsdaft]

I think there is very little evidence, if any, to support that claim.

i'd argue there's hundreds of years of evidence.

[One Day Soon]

You don't really believe that do you!?

Yes, I do.

Just to pick an example at random. Two people read Orwell's 'Animal Farm', one of them gets the allegory while the other thinks it's an amusing tale of what some talking farm-yard animals get up to. Both of those are equally worthwhile and correct views of the work of art?

Yes, for those people they are equally correct views of the work of art. If you do not accept that then you end up in a position where one person has less worth than another because 'we' collectively decide what is the right thing to think. Where art is concerned there is no right and wrong - there is only subjective interpretation all of which is equally valid.

In the case of your example above an adult should get the allegory but a child may not. The child could express an entirely valid subjective opinion on the story without needing to appreciate the allegory.

Why would it have anything to do with 'saying a person's opinion is not actually their opinion'?

I think that is self-evident but less interesting.



Of course they have the right to create their cartoons and to publish them if they wish to (as long as they do not over-step existing legal boundaries over incitement and the like). However, national newspapers have no obligation to publish them for them.

We are agreed on this. If they have the right to create and publish then those reacting to what is created and published have to ask themselves some tough questions about their response which seems to imply, or perhaps overtly state, that they should not have that right in the first place.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Yes, I do.

Wow.


Yes, for those people they are equally correct views of the work of art. If you do not accept that then you end up in a position where one person has less worth than another because 'we' collectively decide what is the right thing to think. Where art is concerned there is no right and wrong - there is only subjective interpretation all of which is equally valid.

Well of course for those people who think it they are correct, because that's what they've taken it to mean.

It's nothing to do with someone having less worth as a person, it's to do with their opinion of whatever piece is being discussed having less worth if they are wrong in their opinion of the piece.

One of the main facets of art is to do with its collective impact on society, so that's nonsense as well.

I'll try another example to attempt to show how ludicrous this position is. Two people are in an art gallery looking at Picasso's Guernica. One of them thinks it's a really uplifting and even funny composition - maybe thinking that it's a depiction of busy life in a city. The other person sees it for what it is, a depiction of the horror of modern warfare and it's impact on civilians. The first person's understanding of the painting is not 'wrong' and the second person's not 'right'?


In the case of your example above an adult should get the allegory but a child may not. The child could express an entirely valid subjective opinion on the story without needing to appreciate the allegory.

Why have you decided to make one of the people a child and one of them an adult?

That's just a case of them not being of the requisite age to read it as it was intended.


I think that is self-evident but less interesting.

It's certainly not self-evident but I'm interested to know why you think it is.

So, again, why would it have anything to do with a person's opinion not actually being their opinion?


We are agreed on this. If they have the right to create and publish then those reacting to what is created and published have to ask themselves some tough questions about their response which seems to imply, or perhaps overtly state, that they should not have that right in the first place.

I'm not sure it does, it might be said to imply that they should not have been published - but that's very different to suggesting that the right of someone to draw what they like and distribute it if they see fit should be curtailed.

[An Leargaidh]

Jesus is a recurring character on South Park and has been depicted in numerous compromising situations, Moses is depicted as a giant holographic head FFS. There have naturally been complaints and protests from Christian and Jewish groups but nothing on the scale of physical violence, whether implied or actual.

Perhaps it's time for 'radical' Muslims to realise there are better ways to get a point accross than violence and for the majority moderate groups to be far more open and vocal in their condemnation of the extremist elements.

:thumbsup:totally agree mate. You see, no matter how much someone satirises, pokes fun at or lampoons Jesus or his message, he will forgive them. He died on the cross for their sins. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say, "Mock me and I will saw your head off with a hunting knife, poke fun at me and I will blow up your people."

The main thing about the Bible is that it has not been subject to abrogation, i.e. once the final form was agreed by the church it has stayed constant in form and content. Other religions have books which have been abrogated over the years, i.e. altered, amended, had clauses cancelled by later clauses, had clauses removed, had clauses added.

If you want to know more watch this interview with Father Zakaria Botros. Members of another non-Christian religion have already sworn to kill him so it won't do him any more harm if I let him explain it all :agree: There are follow up episodes on YouTube also

Father Zakaria Botros explains about abrogation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYRxrE3-F8U)

[hibsdaft]

Perhaps it's time for 'radical' Muslims to realise there are better ways to get a point accross than violence and for the majority moderate groups to be far more open and vocal in their condemnation of the extremist elements.

aye but as long as they can get results by exerting their influence in this way they will continue to, just as the church did for hundreds of years in Europe.

imo the best way to stop them is to work with secular and moderate muslims. history is pretty clear that demonising and attacking a religion/ cult (which imo people even on this thread have done in a subtle way) will just solidify the unity of that religion - unite people who in reality have hee-haw in common (cavemen 'radicals' and the enlightened moderate majority).

of course those who just want to score petty points between religions will never try this because they have quite different aims.

[Betty Boop]

:agree: That pretty much sums things up for me.

Although I'm not exactly thrilled to see and hear people mocking Jesus and Christianity, if they want to do it then they should be allowed that freedom. Depending on how I was feeling, I might publicly protest against it but I certainly wouldn't go out looking for revenge against those responsible or physically harm them in any way. I am quite sure that the vast majority of Christians would take the same view. I really cannot remember hearing about a single incident, in recent times, where someone has lost their life because of comments that they have made about Jesus or Christianity.

However, unfortunately that is not how a large proportion of Muslims see things. Whenever Muhammad or Islam is made fun of in any way, the entire Muslim world is whipped up into a frenzy over it and people have been killed because of comments that they have made about the religion. The lucky ones escape with having to go into hiding and having round-the-clock security looking after them. You only need to look at the outcry surrounding the cartoons and the various people who have been targeted as a result of them being published. There is the man in this thread who has been assaulted and had several death threats aimed in his direction, there is also the despicable attack on an elderly Danish man at the start of this year who was threatened by a man wielding an axe and a knife after he had broken into his home whilst he was there with his young granddaughter. Also, who can forget the barbaric murder of Theo Van Gogh in 2004? He had made a short film earlier that year, that was critical of Islam and in return he was shot eight times, stabbed at least twice and his killer also attempted to decapitate him.

On a slightly different note regarding people being subjected to violence by religious extremists because of their job (i.e. abortion doctors etc), I am actually quite glad this came up. Apart from a few exceptions, such as the vile Westboro Baptist Church in the USA, I am not aware of many Church ministers who actively encourage their congregation to go out and murder or harm people because they are not Christians or because they are actually against Christianity or because they take part in things that are arguably against the teachings of the Bible, such as abortion or homosexual behaviour. Yes, you get Christians who will go out and publicly state that they believe certain things are against the teachings of God but then I think that is their right to do that, just as it is also someone's right to state in public that they think Christianity is a load of nonsense.

However, I have heard of quite a number of instances, in the UK alone, where mosques have been used as recruitment centres for potential terrorists and the worshippers have been told about how bad the West is and how we are the infidels and must be defeated. Many hundreds of people each year are murdered in attacks by Muslim terrorists all over the world, either working as part of a larger group or by themselves.

Don't get me wrong, there is a very large Muslim population in this country that live here peacefully, go about their daily lives without bothering anyone and are a very positive influence on society. So I'm not trying to say that all Muslims fit the description that I have given above because that wouldn't be true.

I just wish that the more volatile members of the Islamic community could find a slightly more moderate way to deal with people criticising, and poking fun at, their faith. Preferably methods that don't include suicide bombings, decapitations and general intimidatory behaviour that in turn causes fear and distrust across the wider Western world.

The Army of God advocates the use of force, and believes the use of force is justifiable against doctors who perform abortions, there are quite a few pastors, priests and evangelists who have signed up to their defensive action statement.

DEFENSIVE ACTION STATEMENT

We, the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all godly action necessary to defend
innocent human life including the use of force. We proclaim that whatever force is
legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn
child. We assert that if Michael Griffin did in fact kill David Gunn, his use of lethal force
was justifiable provided it was carried out for the purpose of defending the lives of unborn
children. Therefore, he ought to be acquitted of the charges against him.

Mike Bray - Pastor, Reformation Lutheran Church, Bowie, Maryland

C. Roy McMillan - Executive Director, Christian Action Group, Jackson, Mississippi

Andrew Burnett - Director, Advocates for Life Ministries, Portland, Oregon

Cathy Ramey - Associate Editor, Life Advocate Magazine, Portland, Oregon

Matt Trewhella Pastor, Mercy Seat Christian Church, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Paul J. Hill - Director, Defensive Action, Pensacola, Florida

Paul deParrie - Author of Numerous Titles, Portland, Oregon

Regina Dinwiddie - Christian Pro-Life Activist & Producer of Rescue Radio, MO and KS

Michael Dodds - Leader of Wichita Rescue Movement, Kansas

Henry Felisone - Director, Queens Pro-Life Group, Queens, New York

Tony Piso - Pastor, Evangelical Mission Church, Forest Hill, New York

Jacob Miller - Evangelist, Assembly of Yahweh & Pro-Life Activist, Tampa, Florida

Dan Bray - Director, Defenders of the Defenders of Life, Bowie, Maryland

David Crane- Director, Rescue Virginia, Norfolk, VA

Donald Spitz- Evangelist & Assistant Director for Rescue Virginia, Norfolk, Virginia

Michael Jarecki - Ret. Pastor, Saint Mary's Church, Brushton, New York

Bill Koehler - Director of Project Awareness, North Bergen, New Jersey

Kenneth Arndt - Director, New Hampshire Rescue, Windham, New Hampshire

Dave Leach - Editor, Prayer and Action Weekly News, Des Moines, Iowa

Mike Walker - Leader in National Assoc. of Planned Parenthood Fighters, Alabama

Thomas Carleton - Catholic Priest, Presently Incarcerated in Billerica, Massachusetts

Joseph F. O'Hara - Director, Wyoming Valley Rescue Group, Pennsylvania

David Graham - Attorney at Law, Olathe, Kansas

David Trosch - Catholic Priest, Publisher Justifiable Homicide Cartoon & President
Life Enterprises Unlimited, Mobile, Alabama

Dawn Stover - Assistant Director, Advocates for Life Ministries, Portland, Oregon

Mike Meyer - Chairman, Tri-State Rescue Committee, Cincinnati, Ohio


David Craig - Former Presbyterian Pastor, Hope, Indiana

John Brockhoeft - Author of "The Brockhoeft Report," incarcerated in Burlington, Kentucky
Donna Bray - Co-Founder, Defenders of the Defenders of Life, Bowie, Maryland

Media Consultant - Gary McCullough; Publicist - Jerry McGlothlin

[bighairyfaeleith]

This all just adds to my belief that religion has no place in modern society. Unfortunately it is always used by bampots as an excuse for a fight!!

[Betty Boop]

This all just adds to my belief that religion has no place in modern society. Unfortunately it is always used by bampots as an excuse for a fight!!

I agree, but some on here imply it is only Muslims that are fundementalist or hold extreme views.

[Gatecrasher]

YouTube - clip - southpark muhammad episode 200 - muhammad in bear suit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG0quz3Gu8g)
is that ok to show?? i dunno i guess we'll see! :faf:

my personal view that its fair game and some people just need to grow up a bit, imagine living in a world where you cant even draw a cartoon :blah:

[the_ginger_hibee]

http://img.moronail.net/img/3/9/2039.jpg

[khib70]

Someone should really acquaint Mr. Vilks with the thoughts of a fellow Scandinavian, although one of such greater worth that it's barely conceivable.

"People demand freedom of speech as compensation for freedom of thought, which they rarely use."

It's nothing whatsoever to do with people being 'rabidly deranged, humourless and undemocratic' it's about a man whose entire modus operandi is to engage in attempts to whip up racial and religious hatred (particularly given that the chosen recipients of the attacks are a supremely precariously positioned section of society) under the canard of 'freedom of speech' receiving the backlash from doing so. Which is not, of course, to say that the attack was remotely justified - it absolutely was not. It's a bit of a concern that I have to say that as unequivocally as possible...

Freedom of speech is a fantastic thing to have, it's less of a fantastic thing when worthless 'artists' like Vilks *******ise it as a means to provide cover for a near pathological desire to offend a particular minority group.

That apart, the various responses on this thread are depressingly unsurprising.



Ah yes, that's right. If you find yourself incapable of properly responding to criticism of your posts, resort to completely unrelated, snide and monumentally unfunny comments in a different thread entirely. Good job!



Crikey, and to think you previously objected to being called an Islamophobic racist...
Crikey indeed. So linking to a photograph of a group of fundamentalist Islamist nutters makes me an "Islamophobic racist" now does it? Isn't this the same kind of reductionist lazy thinking you're so keen to point out in others?
At no point did I say or imply that the people in the photo were representative of Muslims generally. I am also quite aware (as BB pointed out in the post above) that other religions have their share of them.

As for my first post it was intended as a light-hearted dig, and no, it wasn't all that funny. But flinging about accusations of racism - as you seem to enjoy doing these days - is pretty damned unfunny as well.

[Bishop Hibee]

do you not see a slight contradiction there?

re: the rest of yr point: history says that Christians were happy for blasphemers to be punished by death in the UK, and for blasphemy to be illegal. when the tide turned following the enlightenment these laws were gradually overturned. while the Church was able to retain them however, they showed every desire to.

if they could bring them back tomorrow they would in a flash.

Bulldust. As far as I can tell the last person by the state killed for blasphemy in the UK was in 1697. More than 300 years have passed. Are you suggesting Christians in the UK would like to see the death penalty returned for blasphemy? Laughable.

As for the OP, while I disagree with the lack of respect shown the Muslim religion, resorting to physical violence to express ones disagreement with it is plain wrong. In a pluralist society, everyone has to live with the fact that what they believe may become an object of satire however weak.

I look forward to seeing how all the humanist/atheist anti-papal visit protesters conduct themselves in September. With their post-enlightenment views, I'm sure they'll dazzle with there argument and protest :rolleyes:

[hibsdaft]

At no point did I say or imply that the people in the photo were representative of Muslims generally.

sorry but that was a perfectly reasonable assumption from the post you made because it was in response to, and in agreement with, the "such a peaceful bunch" comment, which imo can only be taken to cover muslims in general. hence why i followed your post with a request for clarification.

fair play if that isn't your view afterall but it genuinely seemed to be that that was what you were saying.

[hibsdaft]

Bulldust. As far as I can tell the last person by the state killed for blasphemy in the UK was in 1697. More than 300 years have passed. Are you suggesting Christians in the UK would like to see the death penalty returned for blasphemy? Laughable.

i am saying that the church wishes to hold as much power as it can get away with.

[Woody1985]

The Army of God advocates the use of force, and believes the use of force is justifiable against doctors who perform abortions, there are quite a few pastors, priests and evangelists who have signed up to their defensive action statement.

DEFENSIVE ACTION STATEMENT

We, the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all godly action necessary to defend
innocent human life including the use of force. We proclaim that whatever force is
legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn
child. We assert that if Michael Griffin did in fact kill David Gunn, his use of lethal force
was justifiable provided it was carried out for the purpose of defending the lives of unborn
children. Therefore, he ought to be acquitted of the charges against him.

Mike Bray - Pastor, Reformation Lutheran Church, Bowie, Maryland

C. Roy McMillan - Executive Director, Christian Action Group, Jackson, Mississippi

Andrew Burnett - Director, Advocates for Life Ministries, Portland, Oregon

Cathy Ramey - Associate Editor, Life Advocate Magazine, Portland, Oregon

Matt Trewhella Pastor, Mercy Seat Christian Church, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Paul J. Hill - Director, Defensive Action, Pensacola, Florida

Paul deParrie - Author of Numerous Titles, Portland, Oregon

Regina Dinwiddie - Christian Pro-Life Activist & Producer of Rescue Radio, MO and KS

Michael Dodds - Leader of Wichita Rescue Movement, Kansas

Henry Felisone - Director, Queens Pro-Life Group, Queens, New York

Tony Piso - Pastor, Evangelical Mission Church, Forest Hill, New York

Jacob Miller - Evangelist, Assembly of Yahweh & Pro-Life Activist, Tampa, Florida

Dan Bray - Director, Defenders of the Defenders of Life, Bowie, Maryland

David Crane- Director, Rescue Virginia, Norfolk, VA

Donald Spitz- Evangelist & Assistant Director for Rescue Virginia, Norfolk, Virginia

Michael Jarecki - Ret. Pastor, Saint Mary's Church, Brushton, New York

Bill Koehler - Director of Project Awareness, North Bergen, New Jersey

Kenneth Arndt - Director, New Hampshire Rescue, Windham, New Hampshire

Dave Leach - Editor, Prayer and Action Weekly News, Des Moines, Iowa

Mike Walker - Leader in National Assoc. of Planned Parenthood Fighters, Alabama

Thomas Carleton - Catholic Priest, Presently Incarcerated in Billerica, Massachusetts

Joseph F. O'Hara - Director, Wyoming Valley Rescue Group, Pennsylvania

David Graham - Attorney at Law, Olathe, Kansas

David Trosch - Catholic Priest, Publisher Justifiable Homicide Cartoon & President
Life Enterprises Unlimited, Mobile, Alabama

Dawn Stover - Assistant Director, Advocates for Life Ministries, Portland, Oregon

Mike Meyer - Chairman, Tri-State Rescue Committee, Cincinnati, Ohio


David Craig - Former Presbyterian Pastor, Hope, Indiana

John Brockhoeft - Author of "The Brockhoeft Report," incarcerated in Burlington, Kentucky
Donna Bray - Co-Founder, Defenders of the Defenders of Life, Bowie, Maryland

Media Consultant - Gary McCullough; Publicist - Jerry McGlothlin




So you're using this as a comparable example? People think that when a baby is created that it is life and it is murder and try to prevent it from happening compared with someone drawing a picture of some prophet.

Yes, both groups are ****ed up but at least one of them has a semi decent reason! It's not the same IMO.

And why aren't they allowed to draw him? It's like the wizard of oz behind a big curtain, what you can't see is feared the most.

[Betty Boop]

So you're using this as a comparable example? People think that when a baby is created that it is life and it is murder and try to prevent it from happening compared with someone drawing a picture of some prophet.

Yes, both groups are ****ed up but at least one of them has a semi decent reason! It's not the same IMO.

And why aren't they allowed to draw him? It's like the wizard of oz behind a big curtain, what you can't see is feared the most.

What are you on about? FakirkHibee said-Apart from a few exceptions, such as the vile Westboro Baptist Church in the USA, I am not aware of many Church ministers who actively encourage their congregation to go out and murder or harm people because they are not Christians or because they are actually against Christianity or because they take part in things that are arguably against the teachings of the Bible, such as abortion or homosexual behaviour. Clearly that statement is wrong is it not? I never mentioned drawing pictures, maybe you should read posts in full before jumping on people. :greengrin

[Woody1985]

What are you on about? FakirkHibee said-Apart from a few exceptions, such as the vile Westboro Baptist Church in the USA, I am not aware of many Church ministers who actively encourage their congregation to go out and murder or harm people because they are not Christians or because they are actually against Christianity or because they take part in things that are arguably against the teachings of the Bible, such as abortion or homosexual behaviour. Clearly that statement is wrong is it not? I never mentioned drawing pictures, maybe you should read posts in full before jumping on people. :greengrin

Fair play, apologies. But still, would you not say that is a relatively short list?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Crikey indeed. So linking to a photograph of a group of fundamentalist Islamist nutters makes me an "Islamophobic racist" now does it? Isn't this the same kind of reductionist lazy thinking you're so keen to point out in others?

No, no it isn't. Someone posted the decidedly racist,


Such a peaceful bunch...The 'bunch' there is 'Muslims', I'm sure you'll agree? I don't see any other way to take it. You replied to the post saying,


Pussycats reallyAlongside a picture of some nutters protesting. Unless there is some incredible subtlety and nuance that I'm missing (and that hibsdaft is also missing) the logic was that you enjoyed the sarcastic claim that Muslims were a 'peaceful bunch' and thought you'd join in with the similarly sarcastic comment that they (Muslims) were 'pussycats'. The implication being that, of course, Muslims are preternaturally violent. That's racist, no?


At no point did I say or imply that the people in the photo were representative of Muslims generally. I am also quite aware (as BB pointed out in the post above) that other religions have their share of them.

On the contrary, that's exactly what you did.


As for my first post it was intended as a light-hearted dig, and no, it wasn't all that funny. But flinging about accusations of racism - as you seem to enjoy doing these days - is pretty damned unfunny as well.

This isn't the first time you've claimed that I 'fling around' accusations of racism, and I'm not exactly sure why. Last time you did so, I pointed out the circumstances in which I'd accused Fergus and yourself of racism - neither you nor he has ever put up any sort of counter-argument as to why what he said wasn't explicitly racist and what you said indicative of Islamophobia. I'm now accusing you of racism due to the self-evident racism above. That's not 'flinging' anything around, it's a reasoned response to the evidence in front of me. I'm perfectly willing to withdraw both accusations and apologise if either of you can convincingly explain why I shouldn't take the comments to be indicative of racism.

[RigRoars]

i am saying that the church wishes to hold as much power as it can get away with.


You my man/woman are a complete and utter clown.

[khib70]

sorry but that was a perfectly reasonable assumption from the post you made because it was in response to, and in agreement with, the "such a peaceful bunch" comment, which imo can only be taken to cover muslims in general. hence why i followed your post with a request for clarification.

fair play if that isn't your view afterall but it genuinely seemed to be that that was what you were saying.


No, no it isn't. Someone posted the decidedly racist,

The 'bunch' there is 'Muslims', I'm sure you'll agree? I don't see any other way to take it. You replied to the post saying,

Alongside a picture of some nutters protesting. Unless there is some incredible subtlety and nuance that I'm missing (and that hibsdaft is also missing) the logic was that you enjoyed the sarcastic claim that Muslims were a 'peaceful bunch' and thought you'd join in with the similarly sarcastic comment that they (Muslims) were 'pussycats'. The implication being that, of course, Muslims are preternaturally violent. That's racist, no?



On the contrary, that's exactly what you did.



This isn't the first time you've claimed that I 'fling around' accusations of racism, and I'm not exactly sure why. Last time you did so, I pointed out the circumstances in which I'd accused Fergus and yourself of racism - neither you nor he has ever put up any sort of counter-argument as to why what he said wasn't explicitly racist and what you said indicative of Islamophobia. I'm now accusing you of racism due to the self-evident racism above. That's not 'flinging' anything around, it's a reasoned response to the evidence in front of me. I'm perfectly willing to withdraw both accusations and apologise if either of you can convincingly explain why I shouldn't take the comments to be indicative of racism.
Clearly a communication issue here. I , possibly wrongly, I accept, took the "peaceful bunch" post to refer specifically to the subject of the OP (the nutters who attacked the cartoonist), and responded on that basis.

For the record, I emphatically do not believe that all Muslims are "preternaturally violent" or even that any more than a small minority are. Such a claim would be patently absurd, and would fly in the face of both the facts and my own experience.

[Dinkydoo]

This all just adds to my belief that religion has no place in modern society. Unfortunately it is always used by bampots as an excuse for a fight!!

:agree:


I agree, but some on here imply it is only Muslims that are fundementalist or hold extreme views.

:top marks

I'd go as far as saying that many people across the world hold this view. What about the Southern Baptist Church......... nutters!

[Leicester Fan]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/may/18/religion-islam (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/may/18/religion-islam)


Free speech and hate in Sweden

The cycle of outrage and offence set off by the Danish cartoons of Muhammad continues in Sweden
Something strange and nasty is happening in Sweden (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/sweden), where the struggle over free speech and blasphemy is moving into physical violence. Last week, Lars Vilks (http://bit.ly/9sCNAL), the artist who had a price put on his head by al-Qaida after he drew a sketch of Muhammad as a comic dog on a roundabout, was lecturing at Uppsala university on free speech. He showed a film (http://bit.ly/co6uuY)by the Iranian-born Dutch artist Sooreh Hera, which alternates slides of gay soft porn with pictures of religious leaders and iconography until two men wearing a masks of the prophet are seen making out; at this point (http://bit.ly/9oMPGm)a sixteen-year-old Muslim youth in the audience jumped up and headbutted him, while other protesters started shouting "Allahu Akbar". The audience had all been searched before they were allowed in, and security police were on hand to overpower the protestors (http://bit.ly/aE08z9), but it was still a noisy and frightening piece of theatre.
It's hard to tell who was being more provocative here. Vilks was clearly out to offend, and the protestors were out to be offended and furiously outraged. But it is remarkable how offensive a man may feel towards people who have put a price on his head.
Over the weekend, unknown assailants attempted to burn his house down (he was away at the time); meanwhile, in Skåne, 500km to the south, which has the highest concentration of immigrants and of anti-immigrant parties, the leader of a fringe anti-immigrant and Islamophobic party has been charged with stirring up racial hatred. His offence was to have mounted a demonstration of free speech with a poster in which a naked middle-aged Muhammad holds the hand of a naked pre-pubescent girl who is in turn holding a doll. "He's 53; she's 9. Are these the weddings we want to see in Skåne?" asks the caption.
Malmö has been the scene of some unpleasant anti-Israeli rioting last year and reports of anti-Semitic harassment of the city's small Jewish population, some of whom came as childhood refugees from Nazism. The Mayor, Ilmar Reepalu, has taken very pro-Palestinian positions which, while they may not have materially affected the situation in the Middle East, are blamed for raising racial and religious tensions in his own city. There is a long tradition of Swedish politicians pretending to great moral influence in the outside world: in the late Sixties students called themselves the Vietcong; when I first lived there you'd have thought the entire intelligentsia had spent the Vietnam war being napalmed in their trenches as they fought the hated Yankee imperialists. I hope that farce will not now repeat itself as tragedy.

[Sir David Gray]

The Army of God advocates the use of force, and believes the use of force is justifiable against doctors who perform abortions, there are quite a few pastors, priests and evangelists who have signed up to their defensive action statement.

DEFENSIVE ACTION STATEMENT

We, the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all godly action necessary to defend
innocent human life including the use of force. We proclaim that whatever force is
legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn
child. We assert that if Michael Griffin did in fact kill David Gunn, his use of lethal force
was justifiable provided it was carried out for the purpose of defending the lives of unborn
children. Therefore, he ought to be acquitted of the charges against him.

I'm aware that there are quite a few ultra-conservative Christian groups (particularly in the USA) who promote violent methods in order to defend their beliefs. Although I am generally opposed to abortion, it is absolutely unacceptable to kill someone, just because you disagree with certain things that they do or because of certain views that they hold. I cannot and will not condone that sort of behaviour.


I agree, but some on here imply it is only Muslims that are fundementalist or hold extreme views.

I can only speak for myself but I have never implied any such thing. I've said on numerous occasions that you get extremists in every religion, Christianity included, but the number of violent fundamentalists in the Islamic faith, who are prepared to murder and maim, vastly outnumber the extremists belonging to every other mainstream religion. I strongly believe this to be the case and I would always argue that point.


Alongside a picture of some nutters protesting. Unless there is some incredible subtlety and nuance that I'm missing (and that hibsdaft is also missing) the logic was that you enjoyed the sarcastic claim that Muslims were a 'peaceful bunch' and thought you'd join in with the similarly sarcastic comment that they (Muslims) were 'pussycats'. The implication being that, of course, Muslims are preternaturally violent. That's racist, no?

No, it might be factually incorrect or a bit presumptuous but I wouldn't say it's racist.

It's an individual's choice to belong to a certain religion, you cannot choose what race you are so therefore, I don't believe that Muslims are a race. If they're not a race, making derogatory remarks about Islam, and the people who follow it, cannot be deemed racist in my eyes.


The Jerry Springer the Opera comparison is a false one. As it was never concerned with just being an attempt to provoke and offend a precariously positioned group in European society purely for the sake of provoking and offending them. Jerry Springer... took Judeo-Christian images that were already in the public sphere and which Christian Churches had traded on for centuries and subverted/satirised them. The 'Muhammed cartoonists' took something that had been rigorously protected and policed by Muslims for centuries and basically said, "You can't do this, but we in the liberal, enlightened West can! Hahahahaha! Look at us go! How do you like that!?

How exactly is the Jerry Springer comparison false? It is an example of a publication where the producers have ripped Christianity to shreds and made a fool out of things that Christians passionately believe in. I think that is a very fair comparison to the cartoons of Muhammad.

The difference is, I don't believe that a single person involved in the making of Jerry Springer: The Opera was murdered or threatened in any serious manner. Also, since you believe that the cartoon artists had the right to produce them but the newspapers didn't necessarily have an "obligation" to publish them on their behalf, the equivalent to the newspapers in the Jerry Springer show are the theatres that it was shown in and also the BBC, which broadcast it. Although complaints and protests were made, once again, I am not aware of anyone who works for either the BBC or the theatres being murdered or threatened because of their decision to give the musical a platform.

I wonder how long someone would last if they produced a musical that portrayed Muhammad in a bad light and lambasted the Islamic religion and put it on at the West End and then got the BBC to broadcast it. I would give it a week or so before the "Behead those who insult Islam" placards would be out in force and on our streets once again.

Also, the point you are making about Muslims being a "precariously positioned group in European society" doesn't really stand up for me. As far as I'm concerned, the reaction that the Muhammad cartoons got in the West, has nothing at all to do with the position of Muslims in European society. We are talking here about a religion, that in many countries where it dominates, does not allow you to criticise Islam in any way, it is a capital offence to mock Muhammad and attempting to convert to another faith sees you whipped off to the nearest gallows. The Muslim reaction to these cartoons would have been the same, regardless of which part of the world they originated. The only difference is, they wouldn't have been allowed to be published in a Muslim country in the first place.

Even if I thought the "precarious" statement was relevant, it doesn't excuse violent behaviour. You don't see many people, who belong to other minority groups such as homosexuals or the disabled (which I believe is the single most marginalised group in society nowadays, by some distance) going about, armed with guns and strapped with bombs, and targeting the people that they believe are responsible for shunning, mocking or discriminating against them.

The bottom line is, this is a religion where many of its adherents simply do not wish to abide by, or understand, democracy and freedom of speech, which are two basic rights that we enjoy in this country. They believe that they are right and everyone else must live by their rules or face serious punishment.

[Twa Cairpets]

Bulldust. As far as I can tell the last person by the state killed for blasphemy in the UK was in 1697. More than 300 years have passed. Are you suggesting Christians in the UK would like to see the death penalty returned for blasphemy? Laughable.

As for the OP, while I disagree with the lack of respect shown the Muslim religion, resorting to physical violence to express ones disagreement with it is plain wrong. In a pluralist society, everyone has to live with the fact that what they believe may become an object of satire however weak.

I look forward to seeing how all the humanist/atheist anti-papal visit protesters conduct themselves in September. With their post-enlightenment views, I'm sure they'll dazzle with there argument and protest :rolleyes:

So am I. I'll be gutted if any protest is anything less than dignified and intelligent. I'm pretty sure it won't be a violent rammy threatening death driven (and justified) by spritual fervour.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Bulldust. As far as I can tell the last person by the state killed for blasphemy in the UK was in 1697. More than 300 years have passed. Are you suggesting Christians in the UK would like to see the death penalty returned for blasphemy? Laughable.

As for the OP, while I disagree with the lack of respect shown the Muslim religion, resorting to physical violence to express ones disagreement with it is plain wrong. In a pluralist society, everyone has to live with the fact that what they believe may become an object of satire however weak.

I look forward to seeing how all the humanist/atheist anti-papal visit protesters conduct themselves in September. With their post-enlightenment views, I'm sure they'll dazzle with there argument and protest :rolleyes:

What have humanists got to do with it?

Do you actually know what a humanist is?

[hibsbollah]

Well, it's pretty simple. You look at each piece that comes out and you judge its motivation, its intent and its worth as a piece of art.

If you look at the cartoons published in the Jyllands-Posten and the cartoon by Vilks published in Sweden there is absolutely nothing there, nothing whatsoever. All they are are gratuitous attempts to offend for the sake of offending and sometimes veering into outright racism with essentialised, Orientalist charicatures of the stereotypical Arab. Bomb - check, burqa - check, hook nosed - check, implied violence - check.

The Jerry Springer the Opera comparison is a false one. As it was never concerned with just being an attempt to provoke and offend a precariously positioned group in European society purely for the sake of provoking and offending them. Jerry Springer... took Judeo-Christian images that were already in the public sphere and which Christian Churches had traded on for centuries and subverted/satirised them. The 'Muhammed cartoonists' took something that had been rigorously protected and policed by Muslims for centuries and basically said, "You can't do this, but we in the liberal, enlightened West can! Hahahahaha! Look at us go! How do you like that!?"

Also, the tendency to see the reaction to whichever 'Muhammed cartoon' controversy as one of Muslims being super-offended at the simple fact of having Muhammed displayed pictorially is, I think, again false (and also, I think, a further example of a Western Orientalist desire to explain something that they actually do not actually understand). The fact that a Danish delegation to the Arab League in the wake of the Jyllands-Posten publications produced enormous displays of the cartoons for the rest of the League suggests that this was not the main problem. The problem was that they were symptomatic of, and contributed to, a tide of Islamophobia and immigrant-bashing in Western Europe.

I think you're on shaky ground here.

Firstly, I think Jerry Springer the Opera is an effective comparison. It is a work of 'art' that has offended religious sensibilities. (Obviously there are differences between caricaturing Mohammed and satirising Jesus in this way, but if you remove the ability to make analogies because of differences between two examples you may as well give up before you start and say nothing can be compared to anything else:greengrin).

Secondly, you are trying to predict the intent of the artist, and by doing so form a judgement on the validity of that art, and (seemingly) the level of justification for getting a good kicking. Thats subjective and pointless. You think the cartoons are 'purely to provoke and offend' and 'offend for the sake of offending', there is 'nothing there'. One one hand, others may have a different view, and on the other, plenty of 'art' has proudly claimed to have little intrinsic value apart from its power to shock and offend (I recall you are a fan of some obscure 70s punk bands). Dadaism is also a good example.

'Without the freedom to offend, freedom of expression ceases to exist' as Salman Rushdie said.

[LiverpoolHibs]

No, it might be factually incorrect or a bit presumptuous but I wouldn't say it's racist.

It's an individual's choice to belong to a certain religion, you cannot choose what race you are so therefore, I don't believe that Muslims are a race. If they're not a race, making derogatory remarks about Islam, and the people who follow it, cannot be deemed racist in my eyes.

Ah, this old chesnut. Excellent.

This can be incredibly simply put. Racism has nothing to do with whether a particular group of people constitute a 'race' as 'race' does not exist as a meaningful way in which to categorise human beings. 'Race' does not exist; as soon as you accept that it does you've accepted one of the central tents of racist thought. You don't have to believe me, either, feel free to consult the Human Genome Project on the matter, there is no biological or genetic basis for 'race'.

Racism is nothing to do with attitudes to actually existing races of people but to do with the construction of 'races' followed by the construction of racist attitudes towards them. Racism is never, and never has been, dependent on races actually existing.

Perhaps unknowingly, you've actually done something quite revealing there. Racism isn't allowed anymore, oh no, but Muslims aren't a race so we can say and do whatever the **** we like to them and it can never be 'in your eyes', racist.


How exactly is the Jerry Springer comparison false?

:confused:

I've just said how. Did you stop reading after, 'The Jerry Springer the Opera comparison is a false one.'?

The rest of the post has almost nothing to do with what I've written, but anyway, I'll reply to small bit that does.


Also, the point you are making about Muslims being a "precariously positioned group in European society" doesn't really stand up for me. As far as I'm concerned, the reaction that the Muhammad cartoons got in the West, has nothing at all to do with the position of Muslims in European society. We are talking here about a religion, that in many countries where it dominates, does not allow you to criticise Islam in any way, it is a capital offence to mock Muhammad and attempting to convert to another faith sees you whipped off to the nearest gallows. The Muslim reaction to these cartoons would have been the same, regardless of which part of the world they originated. The only difference is, they wouldn't have been allowed to be published in a Muslim country in the first place.

What does the 'as far as I'm concerned' mean there? What's that based on?

If you actually looked at the objections of the Danish Muslims who made the objections (not the odd maniac with 'behead those who insult Islam' placard) you would categorically see that their objections were not, fundamentally, to the depiction of Muhammed. As I've already stated, the Danish delegation to the Arab League presented large reproductions of the cartoons (along with speeches on the rise of Islamophobia in Denmark, the success that right-wing racist parties were getting by trading on Islamophobia, and the increasing instances of anti-Muslim violence) - that doesn't suggest the depictions of Muhammed were the main gripe, does it?

But I don't imagine you're particularly interested in what they actually have to say themselves, you'd much rather impute your own reason for their objection.

[Twa Cairpets]

LH

Ive just re-read through the thread which has been interesting.

What you I think are a bit guilty of is brooking no alternative to your views on this, and it is making you appear as "defend islam against the evil west" at all costs, whether or not this is your actual view. I obviously am in no position to talk about taking pugnacious and entrenched views on certain topics, because I do it, but answering questions with questions all the time (as tends to be your wont) just makes your position look weak and somewhat shifty.

For what its worth, my view is that the media reporting that the offence was caused by the image of Mohammed is wrong - there are plenty of images of Mohammed in islamic art throughout history, but it is the way the prophet is represented. However, the reporting becomes the fact, and many/most muslims without a detailed religious knowledge comes to believe that the offence is the image. The rent a mob, rent a thug gangs of muslim protestors are not acting individually, but are being being guided and manipulated by religious leaders - albeit extremist ones - for their own ends. These are the same guys who suddenly find USA flags or effigies of Bush and Blair to burn.

You have not defended the violence, but you have I think defended the right for them to be violent because of the apparent offense caused. Adopting this stance is to accept that on whatever level, free-speech or free expression is not acceptable, and to suggest otherwise is to start to restrict liberties based on religious sensibilities, which is a route that surely you would not want to go down?

[LiverpoolHibs]

I think you're on shaky ground here.

Firstly, I think Jerry Springer the Opera is an effective comparison. It is a work of 'art' that has offended religious sensibilities. (Obviously there are differences between caricaturing Mohammed and satirising Jesus in this way, but if you remove the ability to make analogies because of differences between two examples you may as well give up before you start and say nothing can be compared to anything else:greengrin).

Secondly, you are trying to predict the intent of the artist, and by doing so form a judgement on the validity of that art, and (seemingly) the level of justification for getting a good kicking. Thats subjective and pointless. You think the cartoons are 'purely to provoke and offend' and 'offend for the sake of offending', there is 'nothing there'. One one hand, others may have a different view, and on the other, plenty of 'art' has proudly claimed to have little intrinsic value apart from its power to shock and offend (I recall you are a fan of some obscure 70s punk bands). Dadaism is also a good example.

'Without the freedom to offend, freedom of expression ceases to exist' as Salman Rushdie said.

Whoa, that's not on. I've never said anything about 'levels of justification for getting a good kicking'.

I'm not removing the ability to make comparisons, I'm saying the comparison does not fit. Richard Thomas and Stewart Lee making mock of figures which Christianity has traded upon (both theologically/intellectually and quite literally in terms of financial gain) and which they themselves have grown up with and rejected on their own terms is miles away from a group of white Danish cartoonists with no genuine knowledge of the realities of Islam (and including people with a history of Islamophobic incitement) doing so with something that has been rigorously protected by Muslims for centuries just on the basis that they can and they want to contribute to a rising tide of anti-Muslim sentiment.

Others may have a different view, yes. And it would be necessary for them to mount some form of defence of them; I've also stated why I think reactions to a piece of art are not a subjective matter (well, why the reaction may be but that that's irrelevant).

Dadaism is not a good example of art purely based in the desire to shock and/or offend. I'm struggling to think of one work that would be considered Dadaist which is only about the desire to offend/shock.

The punk comparison has slightly more validity if you consider things such as the flirtation with the swastika and other icons of Nazism. But then, I'm quite happy to say that's ****ing stupid and indefensible and I'd have been only too happy to have said so then (had I been lucky enough to have been around :greengrin).

[LiverpoolHibs]

LH

Ive just re-read through the thread which has been interesting.

What you I think are a bit guilty of is brooking no alternative to your views on this, and it is making you appear as "defend islam against the evil west" at all costs, whether or not this is your actual view. I obviously am in no position to talk about taking pugnacious and entrenched views on certain topics, because I do it, but answering questions with questions all the time (as tends to be your wont) just makes your position look weak and somewhat shifty.

At the risk of asking a question, where are the examples of this?

The only times I've asked questions is when I've wanted clarification of where someone is coming from (ie. with F.H.'s use of 'as far as I'm concerned' or why he asked why the comparison was a false one when I'd followed that statement with an explanation of why I thought it was false) or a fairly common rhetorical device (ending an argument with a questioning of whether they agree, the 'does it?' below)


For what its worth, my view is that the media reporting that the offence was caused by the image of Mohammed is wrong - there are plenty of images of Mohammed in islamic art throughout history, but it is the way the prophet is represented. However, the reporting becomes the fact, and many/most muslims without a detailed religious knowledge comes to believe that the offence is the image. The rent a mob, rent a thug gangs of muslim protestors are not acting individually, but are being being guided and manipulated by religious leaders - albeit extremist ones - for their own ends. These are the same guys who suddenly find USA flags or effigies of Bush and Blair to burn.

You have not defended the violence, but you have I think defended the right for them to be violent because of the apparent offense caused. Adopting this stance is to accept that on whatever level, free-speech or free expression is not acceptable, and to suggest otherwise is to start to restrict liberties based on religious sensibilities, which is a route that surely you would not want to go down?

Again, where have I done this? It's pretty incredible that people can twist what I've said into claiming that I've argued it has something to do with 'levels of justification for getting a good kicking' or the 'right of people to be violent' when I stated at the outset that, "Which is not, of course, to say that the attack was remotely justified - it absolutely was not."

My point throughout has been that the free-speech, free-expression argument is largely a smoke-screen.

[hibsbollah]

Whoa, that's not on. I've never said anything about 'levels of justification for getting a good kicking'.

I'm not removing the ability to make comparisons, I'm saying the comparison does not fit. Richard Thomas and Stewart Lee making mock of figures which Christianity has traded upon (both theologically/intellectually and quite literally in terms of financial gain) and which they themselves have grown up with and rejected on their own terms is miles away from a group of white Danish cartoonists with no genuine knowledge of the realities of Islam (and including people with a history of Islamophobic incitement) doing so with something that has been rigorously protected by Muslims for centuries just on the basis that they can and they want to contribute to a rising tide of anti-Muslim sentiment.

Others may have a different view, yes. And it would be necessary for them to mount some form of defence of them; I've also stated why I think reactions to a piece of art are not a subjective matter (well, why the reaction may be but that that's irrelevant).

Dadaism is not a good example of art purely based in the desire to shock and/or offend. I'm struggling to think of one work that would be considered Dadaist which is only about the desire to offend/shock.

The punk comparison has slightly more validity if you consider things such as the flirtation with the swastika and other icons of Nazism. But then, I'm quite happy to say that's ****ing stupid and indefensible and I'd have been only too happy to have said so then (had I been lucky enough to have been around :greengrin).

It really is time I learnt how to multi-quote...

re-'getting a good kicking' thats obviously my hyperbole, not yours. (but the OP was reporting a physical attack on the artist, so thats the context in which we're talking).

re- your second paragraph, we havent really moved forward, you're still making judgements about the knowledge/intent of the artist that can't be proven one way or another. The writers of Jerry might indeed be "making mock of figures which Christianity has traded upon and which they themselves have grown up with and rejected on their own terms" , but i'm not sure thats relevant to their capacity to offend:confused: The point I was making was quite simple really; I personally liked one piece of 'art' (Jerry) I personally disliked another (Mohammed cartoons), but I recognise the capacity to offend in both.

We could obviously go off into Dadaism but best left till another time maybe:greengrin The point is, throughout history art has offended people, sometimes with little 'artistic value' being obvious to the viewer aside from the offense caused.

Everyone has a different idea about the limits of freedom of speech. Personally, I'm at the libertarian end of the spectrum, and to me the freedom of speech is a universal freedom, or it isnt a freedom at all. That means twats like Lars Vilks have rights too.

[LiverpoolHibs]

It really is time I learnt how to multi-quote...

Just c&p the two different quotey bits around the bit of text you're wanting to separate.


re-'getting a good kicking' thats obviously my hyperbole, not yours. (but the OP was reporting a physical attack on the artist, so thats the context in which we're talking).

Fair enough.


re- your second paragraph, we havent really moved forward, you're still making judgements about the knowledge/intent of the artist that can't be proven one way or another. The writers of Jerry might indeed be "making mock of figures which Christianity has traded upon and which they themselves have grown up with and rejected on their own terms" , but i'm not sure thats relevant to their capacity to offend:confused: The point I was making was quite simple really; I personally liked one piece of 'art' (Jerry) I personally disliked another (Mohammed cartoons), but I recognise the capacity to offend in both.

Of course I'm still making judgements, that's what you're meant to do! I don't know what you mean by 'proven one way or another', that just seems exculpatory. Are we ever allowed to judge any piece of art ever, in that case.

If someone is capable of mounting a proper defence of the cartoons as having some genuine point to make then they should do so.

My criticism of the comparison between the cartoons and JS:TO has never been solely about the capacity to cause offence. As I've stated again and again, the main problem is the context in which these things are done. To save me repeating myself, it's all in post #24.

Also, the tendency to see the reaction to whichever 'Muhammed cartoon' controversy as one of Muslims being super-offended at the simple fact of having Muhammed displayed pictorially is, I think, again false (and also, I think, a further example of a Western Orientalist desire to explain something that they actually do not actually understand). The fact that a Danish delegation to the Arab League in the wake of the Jyllands-Posten publications produced enormous displays of the cartoons for the rest of the League suggests that this was not the main problem. The problem was that they were symptomatic of, and contributed to, a tide of Islamophobia and immigrant-bashing in Western Europe.


We could obviously go off into Dadaism but best left till another time maybe:greengrin The point is, throughout history art has offended people, sometimes with little 'artistic value' being obvious to the viewer aside from the offense caused.

Possibly, and they'd also have to be judged on their individual merits (or otherwise).


Everyone has a different idea about the limits of freedom of speech. Personally, I'm at the libertarian end of the spectrum, and to me the freedom of speech is a universal freedom, or it isnt a freedom at all. That means twats like Lars Vilks have rights too.

I haven't denied him his rights at any point, nor have I suggested anyone should have done so.

But people seem to get very confused about things like freedom of speech - he (or anyone else in the Muhammed cartoons affair) has the right to create and publish anything he likes; so long as it does not cross legal lines. He (or anyone else) does not have the right to have his scrawlings published automatically in a national newspaper. There would have no infringements of his rights or liberties if the editor of the paper(s) had said, 'nope sorry we won't be publishing that'. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are both about the right not to be stopped from saying things or from expressing things, it's nothing to do with the right to be given a platform to say things.

[hibsbollah]

Of course I'm still making judgements, that's what you're meant to do! I don't know what you mean by 'proven one way or another', that just seems exculpatory. Are we ever allowed to judge any piece of art ever, in that case.



Judge the art, of course. Judge the intention of the artist? A little more difficult.

I understand your point about global context; war on terror, Islams feeling persecuted, and so on. It depends how you choose to respond.

[magpie1892]

that's where you cross the line imo.

this case was 1/2 warped religious fundamentalist lunatics acting on their own. all religions have them. you seem to be making a sarcastic comment covering all muslims. please confirm what you meant.

as someone based in the US you'll know better than most on here about the psychopathic violence inflicted by fundamentalists of many religions - e.g. doctors murdered for administering abortions etc.

One or two [EDIT: video part two is interesting - just 'one or two' chanting 'Muhammad' was it?] (in an audience in Sweden, FFS), yes, but then we have twats in the audience incessantly screaming 'allahu akbar' througout the incident, including that stupid brainwashed bitch who needs a truncheon in the face pronto to shut her up.

But muslims keep marking their card, don't they? USS Cole, US Embassy in Nairobi, 9/11, Madrid, Theo van Gogh, 11/7, 25/7, Jyllands Posten (hundreds of deaths in protests in the Middle East about ****ing CARTOONS), death for apostasy, women can't drive, 'behead those who insult islam' 'freedom go to hell' 'islam will dominate the world' sharia law in britain, etc., etc.

They just keep on and on and on and it's ****ing boring as well as dangerous. If islam is a religion of peace will you please stop blowing people up?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Judge the art, of course. Judge the intention of the artist? A little more difficult.

I understand your point about global context; war on terror, Islams feeling persecuted, and so on. It depends how you choose to respond.

It may be difficult in certain circumstances, agreed. That's not the case here. What intent, other than that I've described, could there be behind the Lars Vilks cartoon and the particularly awful examples in the Jyllands Posten selection (in which there's a divide. Those aimed to offend for the sake of offending, and nothing else. And those which are just downright racist)?


One or two [EDIT: video part two is interesting - just 'one or two' chanting 'Muhammad' was it?] (in an audience in Sweden, FFS), yes, but then we have twats in the audience incessantly screaming 'allahu akbar' througout the incident, including that stupid brainwashed bitch who needs a truncheon in the face pronto to shut her up.

But muslims keep marking their card, don't they? USS Cole, US Embassy in Nairobi, 9/11, Madrid, Theo van Gogh, 11/7, 25/7, Jyllands Posten (hundreds of deaths in protests in the Middle East about ****ing CARTOONS), death for apostasy, women can't drive, 'behead those who insult islam' 'freedom go to hell' 'islam will dominate the world' sharia law in britain, etc., etc.

They just keep on and on and on and it's ****ing boring as well as dangerous. If islam is a religion of peace will you please stop blowing people up?

And this, TwoCarpets, is why I might sometimes come across as overly pugnacious or as if I 'brook no alternative'. When it has somehow become acceptable to suggest that an entire grouping of disparate and heterogenous people numbering over a billion 'keep marking their card', you should know there are problems afoot.

[hibsdaft]

Clearly a communication issue here. I , possibly wrongly, I accept, took the "peaceful bunch" post to refer specifically to the subject of the OP (the nutters who attacked the cartoonist), and responded on that basis.

For the record, I emphatically do not believe that all Muslims are "preternaturally violent" or even that any more than a small minority are. Such a claim would be patently absurd, and would fly in the face of both the facts and my own experience.

fair do's

[magpie1892]

And this, TwoCarpets, is why I might sometimes come across as overly pugnacious or as if I 'brook no alternative'. When it has somehow become acceptable to suggest that an entire grouping of disparate and heterogenous people numbering over a billion 'keep marking their card', you should know there are problems afoot.

There are indeed problems afoot. In fact, they arrived some time ago. I'm surprised you haven't noticed, tbh.

[One Day Soon]

It may be difficult in certain circumstances, agreed. That's not the case here. What intent, other than that I've described, could there be behind the Lars Vilks cartoon and the particularly awful examples in the Jyllands Posten selection (in which there's a divide. Those aimed to offend for the sake of offending, and nothing else. And those which are just downright racist)?



And this, TwoCarpets, is why I might sometimes come across as overly pugnacious or as if I 'brook no alternative'. When it has somehow become acceptable to suggest that an entire grouping of disparate and heterogenous people numbering over a billion 'keep marking their card', you should know there are problems afoot.

Which is of course precisely what many blinkered observers and external keyboard politicians say about the state of Israel and its component institutions and people.

[Twa Cairpets]

And this, TwoCarpets, is why I might sometimes come across as overly pugnacious or as if I 'brook no alternative'. When it has somehow become acceptable to suggest that an entire grouping of disparate and heterogenous people numbering over a billion 'keep marking their card', you should know there are problems afoot.

As I said, nothing wrong with having strong views. But the real strength behind a stance surely must come from some level of understanding of the opposing view, even if it is diametrically oposed and/or abhorrent to you. On matters of opinion, religion, race and moral right - all of which are at the root of this and the IDF thread - it is almost impossible to be right or wrong in any absolute sense. For every outrage, be it moral or physical, committed by one side, it can always be outdone by the other. As per my earlier example, Muslims have no issues burning effigies of (living) national leaders and national flags, but are up in arms when a cartoon is published in Denmark. Which is worse? Neither bother me as they seem such contrived acts of desecration or lazy stereotyping , but I can see why some people might get miffed. I think they are wrong, but I can see their view.

My point was that while I always enjoy reading your posts, it seems that your unbending adherence to virtually all right being on one side and virtually all wrong being on the other does nothing to support your case. You seem to move from being a pugnacious advocate of the rights of certain oppressed groups to a rhetoric based spokesman.

And by the way apologies for the "question to a question" comment - thats much more prevalent on the IDF thread...

[--------]

One or two [EDIT: video part two is interesting - just 'one or two' chanting 'Muhammad' was it?] (in an audience in Sweden, FFS), yes, but then we have twats in the audience incessantly screaming 'allahu akbar' througout the incident, including that stupid brainwashed bitch who needs a truncheon in the face pronto to shut her up.

But muslims keep marking their card, don't they? USS Cole, US Embassy in Nairobi, 9/11, Madrid, Theo van Gogh, 11/7, 25/7, Jyllands Posten (hundreds of deaths in protests in the Middle East about ****ing CARTOONS), death for apostasy, women can't drive, 'behead those who insult islam' 'freedom go to hell' 'islam will dominate the world' sharia law in britain, etc., etc.

They just keep on and on and on and it's ****ing boring as well as dangerous. If islam is a religion of peace will you please stop blowing people up?



I think we need to make a distinction between Muslims and Islamists. I also think that Vilks and others should realise just how seriously some of the things they do hurt and insult other people's deeply-held beliefs. It IS possible to disagree radically with someone and to express that disagreement without going out of one's way to ridicule them and insult them.

I know many Muslims who would be as unwilling to align themselves with terrorist groups as I would be to align myself with The Army of God - in other words, not at all. Nevertheless, they would still see the cartoon in question as a gratuitous insult to their religion and way of life. It hurts me and angers me sometimes when people go put of their way to mock or insult Christ; I don't claim the right to kill them or shout them down, however. That video says much more about the insecurity and anger and inadequacy of the Muslim demonstrators than it does about the truth or otherwise of Islam.

There's a whole lot about Islam I don't like - and I would agree that Islam contains a deeply intolerant element which expends beyond the spiritual/religious realm into the realm of society and politics. But the same can be said about the Roman Catholic Church. And the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Or any 'faith-structure' that puts organisation and power before truth and toleration. Religion equipped with political and economic power always goes bad.

IMO the exercise of freedom of speech and expression goes hand-in-hand with the exercise of responsibility. Moderate Muslims are working and struggling to curb the power and influence of the extremists and conservatives in their own culture - not all Muslims want to be ruled by Ayatollahs, not all Saudis want to be ruled by the sheikhs, Muslim women, for example, are seeking equality and freedom without abandoning Islam entirely. In tis context, people like Vilks publishing cartoons like the cartoon in question really aren't helping matters. They're simply feeding the paranoia of the conservatives and extremists. Like the demonstrators on the video.

All screaming "Allahu akbar" over and over at the top of your voice does is make people angry and unwilling to listen to anything else you say.

There are many contributors to this messageboard who disagree radically with my world-view, and I with theirs. There are times when threads or posts appear that I don't like. I have to trust the admins to moderate the board fairly and reasonably in the interests of all. If I REALLY don't like something, I can report it, but then I have to leave it to admin. I MIGHT just PM the poster in question, telling them how I feel, but if I start abusing them or threatening them I'll rightly be removed from the forum.

But equally, I and others need to restrain ourselves and refrain from gratuitously mocking or insulting other people's views in the open forums. That's freedom of speech, IMO.

I really wonder whether Vilks OR his attackers have the faintest clue about what that expression really means.

[Sylar]

Interesting to see that the Pakistani government have blocked access to both Youtube and Facebook because these websites contain "anti-Islamic" material/content.

Never mind the fact that they contain materials which would offend every other religion/gender/age group/race/political belief/sexuality/physically disabled/mentally disabled (etc) group on the face of this rock.

Why the need for such censorship?

I'm not so niave to tar all Muslims with the same brush, but this "professional offendee" tag is certainly more and more widespread amongst their faith than any other I know!

I'm sure there are Muslims out there who find some of this "control" and "outcry" as laughable as we (non-Muslim faith) do!

[--------]

Interesting to see that the Pakistani government have blocked access to both Youtube and Facebook because these websites contain "anti-Islamic" material/content.

Never mind the fact that they contain materials which would offend every other religion/gender/age group/race/political belief/sexuality/physically disabled/mentally disabled (etc) group on the face of this rock.

Why the need for such censorship?

I'm not so niave to tar all Muslims with the same brush, but this "professional offendee" tag is certainly more and more widespread amongst their faith than any other I know!

I'm sure there are Muslims out there who find some of this "control" and "outcry" as laughable as we (non-Muslim faith) do!


Because if they don't, the paranoid extreme starts yelling in the streets, then throwing stones, then throwing bombs....

Just as the US government tends to keep a wary eye on Pat Buchanan and the Moral Majority and their cronies.

[Sylar]

Because if they don't, the paranoid extreme starts yelling in the streets, then throwing stones, then throwing bombs....

Just as the US government tends to keep a wary eye on Pat Buchanan and the Moral Majority and their cronies.

Is there some special gene which prevents these people (those of a more "extreme persuasion")from being exposed to offensive material without developing a desire to massacre thousands of people based on one article/video/cartoon etc, developed by someone who probably has a knowledge of Islam based on intensely biased "Western" villian-isation (if this isn't a word, forgive me! :greengrin)

I read/see stuff regularly which is offensive to Christians, offensive to men, offensive to Americans (especially on here! :wink:), offensive to students (especially on here :wink:) etc etc - yet I don't feel any need to violently display my disapproval. The material is out there, but I know to either a) not go looking for it, or b) if I DO happen across something - take it with a pinch of salt, as I realise it's a contradictory opinion/belief to one I hold, or logically provide a counterpoint.

Surely this need to censor, to prevent the extreme response is an admission that something is inherently wrong with the religion on a bigger scale, which promotes such outpouring of violence?

[magpie1892]

I think we need to make a distinction between Muslims and Islamists. I also think that Vilks and others should realise just how seriously some of the things they do hurt and insult other people's deeply-held beliefs. It IS possible to disagree radically with someone and to express that disagreement without going out of one's way to ridicule them and insult them.

I know many Muslims who would be as unwilling to align themselves with terrorist groups as I would be to align myself with The Army of God - in other words, not at all. Nevertheless, they would still see the cartoon in question as a gratuitous insult to their religion and way of life. It hurts me and angers me sometimes when people go put of their way to mock or insult Christ; I don't claim the right to kill them or shout them down, however. That video says much more about the insecurity and anger and inadequacy of the Muslim demonstrators than it does about the truth or otherwise of Islam.

There's a whole lot about Islam I don't like - and I would agree that Islam contains a deeply intolerant element which expends beyond the spiritual/religious realm into the realm of society and politics. But the same can be said about the Roman Catholic Church. And the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Or any 'faith-structure' that puts organisation and power before truth and toleration. Religion equipped with political and economic power always goes bad.

IMO the exercise of freedom of speech and expression goes hand-in-hand with the exercise of responsibility. Moderate Muslims are working and struggling to curb the power and influence of the extremists and conservatives in their own culture - not all Muslims want to be ruled by Ayatollahs, not all Saudis want to be ruled by the sheikhs, Muslim women, for example, are seeking equality and freedom without abandoning Islam entirely. In tis context, people like Vilks publishing cartoons like the cartoon in question really aren't helping matters. They're simply feeding the paranoia of the conservatives and extremists. Like the demonstrators on the video.

All screaming "Allahu akbar" over and over at the top of your voice does is make people angry and unwilling to listen to anything else you say.

There are many contributors to this messageboard who disagree radically with my world-view, and I with theirs. There are times when threads or posts appear that I don't like. I have to trust the admins to moderate the board fairly and reasonably in the interests of all. If I REALLY don't like something, I can report it, but then I have to leave it to admin. I MIGHT just PM the poster in question, telling them how I feel, but if I start abusing them or threatening them I'll rightly be removed from the forum.

But equally, I and others need to restrain ourselves and refrain from gratuitously mocking or insulting other people's views in the open forums. That's freedom of speech, IMO.

I really wonder whether Vilks OR his attackers have the faintest clue about what that expression really means.

This is an extremely well thought-out post, full of good points. I agree with about half of what you say (not that my failure to agree with all of it will bother you!) but most of all the last sentence. Although 'All screaming "Allahu akbar" over and over at the top of your voice does is make people angry and unwilling to listen to anything else you say' runs it close...

[--------]

Is there some special gene which prevents these people (those of a more "extreme persuasion")from being exposed to offensive material without developing a desire to massacre thousands of people based on one article/video/cartoon etc, developed by someone who probably has a knowledge of Islam based on intensely biased "Western" villian-isation (if this isn't a word, forgive me! :greengrin)

I read/see stuff regularly which is offensive to Christians, offensive to men, offensive to Americans (especially on here! :wink:), offensive to students (especially on here :wink:) etc etc - yet I don't feel any need to violently display my disapproval. The material is out there, but I know to either a) not go looking for it, or b) if I DO happen across something - take it with a pinch of salt, as I realise it's a contradictory opinion/belief to one I hold, or logically provide a counterpoint.

Surely this need to censor, to prevent the extreme response is an admission that something is inherently wrong with the religion on a bigger scale, which promotes such outpouring of violence?

Bigots are allergic to contrary opinions. Stupid bigots doubly so. I know this because I occasionally suffer from the complaint myself.

The antidote is to have my wife or my son repeat my stupid and inane opinions back to me, whereupon I realise just how stupid and inane they are, and climb down off my high horse. :rolleyes:

Hysterical anger, arrogant intolerance, and the urge to prove oneself right by killing the folks one disagrees with tell the rest of the world much more about the inadequacy and insecurity of one's inner being than they do about the people one is attacking.

(How's that for arrogant, then, boyo? :wink:)




This is an extremely well thought-out post, full of good points. I agree with about half of what you say (not that my failure to agree with all of it will bother you!) but most of all the last sentence. Although 'All screaming "Allahu akbar" over and over at the top of your voice does is make people angry and unwilling to listen to anything else you say' runs it close...



There are times when being deliberately extreme may be the only way to get people really thinking about a situation already intolerably offensive - one example I can think of is Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" which was his deliberately scandalous and outrageous response to a famine in Ireland about which the London government and their lackeys in Dublin were doing the square root of nothing at all.

Since it proposes that the Irish tenantry should solve their economic problems by selling their children to their English landlords as a table delicacy, you can understand why people found it offensive. Swift's view was that since the English landlords were already starving their tenants from their homes and their land, and since as a result the children were dying in their thousands, where was the difference? The landlords in Swift's view were no better than cannibals anyway.

The pamphlet was, of course, banned by the censor. If Swift had been identified as the author, he'd have been jailed. However, there's a world of difference between focussed and targeted offence given for good reason, and hysterical incoherence and the violent suppression of opinions contrary to one's own.

If we only ever converse with people who see the world in exactly the same way as we do ourselves, how can we ever learn anything new? Or change things for the better?

[LiverpoolHibs]

There are indeed problems afoot. In fact, they arrived some time ago. I'm surprised you haven't noticed, tbh.

Yeah, nicely done.


Which is of course precisely what many blinkered observers and external keyboard politicians say about the state of Israel and its component institutions and people.

Do they? Who says that then?

Feel free to dispute my posts in that thread if there's something that you particularly disagree with. I'm pretty confident there’s no hypocrisy on my part.

Oh, and are you abandoning the discussion we were having on this thread?


As I said, nothing wrong with having strong views. But the real strength behind a stance surely must come from some level of understanding of the opposing view, even if it is diametrically oposed and/or abhorrent to you. On matters of opinion, religion, race and moral right - all of which are at the root of this and the IDF thread - it is almost impossible to be right or wrong in any absolute sense. For every outrage, be it moral or physical, committed by one side, it can always be outdone by the other. As per my earlier example, Muslims have no issues burning effigies of (living) national leaders and national flags, but are up in arms when a cartoon is published in Denmark. Which is worse? Neither bother me as they seem such contrived acts of desecration or lazy stereotyping , but I can see why some people might get miffed. I think they are wrong, but I can see their view.

Well, that assumes that I don't have any understanding of the opposing view, which I don't think is true.

I obviously don't want to bring the IDF thread into this one, but just as you've brought it up. I genuinely believe that the well-constructed idea that there's something complicated about the Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the most nonsense misrepresentations of the entire business. I'll happily go into that more over by, if you want - and there's no particular reason why you should...

I've got no idea why anyone would have much of a problem with people burning an effigy of Tony Blair or George Bush, that seems like a fairly restrained response to the people who oversaw the illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of a country resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. National flags is slightly stickier territory, I agree.


My point was that while I always enjoy reading your posts, it seems that your unbending adherence to virtually all right being on one side and virtually all wrong being on the other does nothing to support your case. You seem to move from being a pugnacious advocate of the rights of certain oppressed groups to a rhetoric based spokesman.

It’s nothing to do with 'all right being on one side' or about being a 'rhetoric based spokesman', it's about the fact that I in certain circumstances it is absolutely necessary to take sides; and that, I think – forgive me if this is assumptive, is where your objection actually lies. You don’t like the idea of taking sides, whereas I think it's sometimes absolutely necessary to do so – because in situations such as those you've mentioned, it isn't a matter of remaining neutral or whatever, it's actually a tacit siding with the powerful against the powerless.

That sounds incredibly precious, pompous and as if I think I'm doing something important – but I don't and its not meant to, I just can’t think of a different way to put it. "You can't be neutral on a moving train.", to steal a phrase.


And by the way apologies for the "question to a question" comment - thats much more prevalent on the IDF thread...

Given the complete and utter insanity, lack of respect for historical reality and manipulation of fact with which that thread is absolutely replete – I'm not particularly bothered about that, sometimes it just got really, really annoying.

[One Day Soon]

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2473896#post2473896)
Which is of course precisely what many blinkered observers and external keyboard politicians say about the state of Israel and its component institutions and people.

Do they? Who says that then?

Those with obsessional hatred of the Israeli state, those with unquestioning blanket adherence to the Palestinian cause and those who are largely ignorant of the historical and contemporary political position in the Middle East but who enjoy a passing aquaintance with 'left' politics. Anyone outside of those rather dire groupings tends to approach discussion on Israel and Palestine with rather more profound reservations about all of the wrong or all of the right being on one side. That includes those of us who actively support the cause and rights of the Palestinian people.

Feel free to dispute my posts in that thread if there's something that you particularly disagree with. I'm pretty confident there’s no hypocrisy on my part.

I don't usually require an invitation to disagree with you.


Oh, and are you abandoning the discussion we were having on this thread?

I will have to re-read the thread and see. I can't immediately remember what was being discussed.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Those with obsessional hatred of the Israeli state, those with unquestioning blanket adherence to the Palestinian cause and those who are largely ignorant of the historical and contemporary political position in the Middle East but who enjoy a passing aquaintance with 'left' politics. Anyone outside of those rather dire groupings tends to approach discussion on Israel and Palestine with rather more profound reservations about all of the wrong or all of the right being on one side. That includes those of us who actively support the cause and rights of the Palestinian people.

Tee-hee. As I say, feel free to take exception to my posts on that thread, in that thread. As opposed to rather silly asides during a discussion on an unrelated subject.


I don't usually require an invitation to disagree with you.

Well, I haven't seen you do so on that thread. Which was the point. I look forward to your contributions to the thread.

[Twa Cairpets]

Well, that assumes that I don't have any understanding of the opposing view, which I don't think is true.

Dont think that for a minute. its very obvious you have a passion about this subject. Any criticism is not about the deoth of knowledge.


I obviously don't want to bring the IDF thread into this one, but just as you've brought it up. I genuinely believe that the well-constructed idea that there's something complicated about the Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the most nonsense misrepresentations of the entire business. I'll happily go into that more over by, if you want - and there's no particular reason why you should...

The areas of discussion are intertwined. Islamic identity - racial, religious and geographical - are all inextricably intertwined to some extent, so to treat them in isolation with limiting analysis to the most superficial degree is difficult.

As for the bit in bold, you seem to suggest if I read it correctly that it is in fact a simple issue. Wow.


I've got no idea why anyone would have much of a problem with people burning an effigy of Tony Blair or George Bush, that seems like a fairly restrained response to the people who oversaw the illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of a country resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. National flags is slightly stickier territory, I agree.

Your view as stated above is absolutely indicative of why you are accused of a completely polarised view on any topic relating to the criticism of Islam/Palestine. Now while I dont find the acts described offensive (just stupid and rather tawdry), I find your rationalisation of them unpleasant.



It’s nothing to do with 'all right being on one side' or about being a 'rhetoric based spokesman', it's about the fact that I in certain circumstances it is absolutely necessary to take sides; and that, I think – forgive me if this is assumptive, is where your objection actually lies. You don’t like the idea of taking sides, whereas I think it's sometimes absolutely necessary to do so – because in situations such as those you've mentioned, it isn't a matter of remaining neutral or whatever, it's actually a tacit siding with the powerful against the powerless.

I dont like the idea of taking sides? Wow! I dont think Ive ever been accused of being wishy washy before. I'll repeat, having a principled stance on a matter of basic morality is hugely important. Without people taking opposing views we would all sink it a morass of banal accomodation and blandness. What I was suggesting is that the passion which you quite evidently have on such topics only allows you to see wrong on one side. It is not Black and White. It is not Powerful against Powerless (maybe on a local scale, but certainly not on a larger scale). It is not Good against Bad. Adopting such an entrenched position cannot help move things forward in any meaningful way, and is doubly dangerous if that stance is supported by a facade of fundamental moral right.


Given the complete and utter insanity, lack of respect for historical reality and manipulation of fact with which that thread is absolutely replete – I'm not particularly bothered about that, sometimes it just got really, really annoying.

Im not going to disagree with matters of historical fact - I'll willingly bow to your knowledge on that in this area. I'm also not going to disagree with the frustrations of reading stuff that is demonstrably wrong (see the Homeopathy/Vaccine threads for similar arguments I've had with Fergus or Paulotion). I just think that to interpret historical fact to defend a modern position which is replete with nuance and uncertainty is to do yourself a disservice.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Dont think that for a minute. its very obvious you have a passion about this subject. Any criticism is not about the deoth of knowledge.

Fair enough.


The areas of discussion are intertwined. Islamic identity - racial, religious and geographical - are all inextricably intertwined to some extent, so to treat them in isolation with limiting analysis to the most superficial degree is difficult.

I don't think that's really true, to be perfectly honest. Obviously Palestine has a pretty strong resonance in the Islamic world but any attempt to reduce the conflict to it having something, anything fundamentally to do with Islam is to fall into another trap.


As for the bit in bold, you seem to suggest if I read it correctly that it is in fact a simple issue. Wow.

Yep, that's exactly what I think. I don't want to bore people more than I do already, so I'll only go into that if you actually want me to.


Your view as stated above is absolutely indicative of why you are accused of a completely polarised view on any topic relating to the criticism of Islam/Palestine. Now while I dont find the acts described offensive (just stupid and rather tawdry), I find your rationalisation of them unpleasant.

I don't know what the word 'polarised' is doing there. There's no point at which I suggested or implied that both Islam and Palestine were to be closed off, cosseted and insulated against criticism. Just that if you're going to do it, you have to do it properly as you would with anything else - and that does not include comments like 'such a peaceful bunch', 'Muslims keep marking their card' or anything else that I've objected to on this and other threads but does include posts such as Doddie's above.

On the other bit. It's pretty simple, is burning an effigy of the men who oversaw an illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people something to get worked up about? I fail to see how someone could think so but I'm willing to hear any argument as to why it is.

What's unpleasant about any of that?


I dont like the idea of taking sides? Wow! I dont think Ive ever been accused of being wishy washy before. I'll repeat, having a principled stance on a matter of basic morality is hugely important. Without people taking opposing views we would all sink it a morass of banal accomodation and blandness. What I was suggesting is that the passion which you quite evidently have on such topics only allows you to see wrong on one side. It is not Black and White. It is not Powerful against Powerless (maybe on a local scale, but certainly not on a larger scale). It is not Good against Bad. Adopting such an entrenched position cannot help move things forward in any meaningful way, and is doubly dangerous if that stance is supported by a facade of fundamental moral right.

It certainly is.

There are certainly issues on which you are not wishy-washy, granted.

Again, I dispute that I only see 'wrong on one side'. If that was the case it is not very likely that I would have stated and the outset that the assault on Vilks was completely unjustified.


Im not going to disagree with matters of historical fact - I'll willingly bow to your knowledge on that in this area. I'm also not going to disagree with the frustrations of reading stuff that is demonstrably wrong (see the Homeopathy/Vaccine threads for similar arguments I've had with Fergus or Paulotion). I just think that to interpret historical fact to defend a modern position which is replete with nuance and uncertainty is to do yourself a disservice.

As I keep on saying to the many people who object to my posts on that thread, point them out on that thread, explain why I'm wrong, why I'm going too far, why I'm purblind to 'the other side' or why I'm doing myself a disservice and we'll go from there. But people don't seem to want to do so, they much prefer silly digs on different threads where they know that others will the implication of statements like 'those with a obsessional hatred of the Israeli state' or claims that someone is 'ignorant' when they themselves refuse to get involved in a thread which by and large I think, has been anything other than indicative of ignorance.

[Twa Cairpets]

Yep, that's exactly what I think. I don't want to bore people more than I do already, so I'll only go into that if you actually want me to.

No, its not necessary and its what the IDF thread is about. For what its worth, to me the distillation of hundreds/thousands of years worth of religious strife, geographical dispute, the coming and going of empires and occupation into a simple question of right and wrong is simplistic and naive.it might be a principled stance, but that doesnt make it correct.


I don't know what the word 'polarised' is doing there. There's no point at which I suggested or implied that both Islam and Palestine were to be closed off, cosseted and insulated against criticism. Just that if you're going to do it, you have to do it properly as you would with anything else - and that does not include comments like 'such a peaceful bunch', 'Muslims keep marking their card' or anything else that I've objected to on this and other threads but does include posts such as Doddie's above.

Polarised is there because that is what your stance is. It is not necessarily a pejorative term, just descriptive of your position. others have equally polarised positions. I'm looking at these threads from a relatively neutral viewpoint, and it is clear your view is very far down the scale in one direction.


On the other bit. It's pretty simple, is burning an effigy of the men who oversaw an illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people something to get worked up about? I fail to see how someone could think so but I'm willing to hear any argument as to why it is.

What's unpleasant about any of that?

I find this argument fairly unpleansant. You couch your justification in emotive language that had it been used in this context: "is drawing an offensive cartoon of the spiritual figurehead of a religion that preaches intolerance and was the justification for the deaths of thousands of innocent people in the Twin Towers something to get worked up about?"

You can't have it both ways.

[LiverpoolHibs]

No, its not necessary and its what the IDF thread is about. For what its worth, to me the distillation of hundreds/thousands of years worth of religious strife, geographical dispute, the coming and going of empires and occupation into a simple question of right and wrong is simplistic and naive.it might be a principled stance, but that doesnt make it correct.

Sigh, but it is necessary now, isn't it? And you're also going to have to back up your position if you're going to claim I'm being simplistic and naive. The important questions really are as simple it gets;

1) Did the foundation of the Israeli state necessitate inflicting a profound injustice on the Palestinian people? No genuine study of history can answer this in any way other than 'yes'. Even staunchly Zionist historians such as Benny Morris do not dispute this historical reality (although, of course, some kooks such as Daniel Pipes, Joan Peters and Alan Dershowitz do – but no serious historian does so).

2) Does this injustice continue to this day? Again, I don’t see any way to answer that other than in the affirmative – siege, occupation, continued settling of land in contravention of international law, the denial of basic human rights and, most importantly, the continued denial of the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

And then you move on to the more complex question of, 'what can be done to right this wrong?' But you can't get to this question without giving the correct answers to the first two.

The problem is that people, you apparently included, seek to create a 'balance' where no such balance does or can exist. There’s nothing politically 'mature' about attempting to do so, all it does is exculpate and normalise an abnormal situation. Equally, there is nothing naive or simplistic about recognising genuine injustice where it exists and wanting/expecting something to be done about it. I'm relatively confident that, at some point in the future, the injustice committed against the Palestinian people will go the way of apartheid, segregation in the U.S., legalised anti-Catholicism in the north of Ireland, and any other number of examples, in making that transition from 'complicated' to 'unjust' as soon as it's decreed from on-high that this is how it should be viewed.

The other point, which crystallizes rather than simplifies matters, is to imagine if you yourself would put up with what the Palestinian people have been expected to put up with – or in fact to think if anyone, anywhere in the world, would put up with it. Would you accept the legitimacy of a project which sought and achieved the ethnic cleansing of an already populated land in which you lived, in the name of establishing a state which was predicated on the exclusion of those already living in that land, including yourself? I repeat, it is not a complicated issue and it has been a fantastically adroit piece of ideological legerdemain to make it appear as if it is.

Oh, and also, a great deal of the enormous amount of injustice could be attenuated just by people actually obeying international law, so that's another way in which it is incredibly simple.

So, in short, what do you want me to do? Deny what I can see is a huge injustice just so that I don’t appear overly partisan, just so as to create some bizarre constructed 'balance'?


I find this argument fairly unpleansant. You couch your justification in emotive language that had it been used in this context: "is drawing an offensive cartoon of the spiritual figurehead of a religion that preaches intolerance and was the justification for the deaths of thousands of innocent people in the Twin Towers something to get worked up about?"

You can't have it both ways.

I'm fairly sure you must know that's a false analogy - because you're usually pretty adept at picking such things up in others' posts, and because you’re not an idiot.

The connection between the figures of the protest, George Bush and Tony Blair, and what the protest is in reaction to, the Iraq war, is self-evident. The connection between the fundamentals of the Islamic faith and the attack on the Twin Towers is not so. Someone or some group carrying out something incredibly awful act in the name of 'x' does nothing to prove that there is something intrinsic in the 'x' which leads to the incredibly awful act. I mean, no-one actually thinks that the Qur’an was the genuine motivating factor for those committing the atrocities on September 11th or on July 7th, do they?

The only bit you can accuse of being 'emotive' is the use of 'immoral' as the rest is demonstrably true – the war was illegal as stated by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the war, coupled with the subsequent occupation, has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. I'm perfectly confident in the use of the word 'immoral'. So, is burning effigies of the men who oversaw this and who now live lives of unimaginable prosperity and luxury a particularly awful thing to do? I’m still to be convinced that it is.

[magpie1892]

I find this argument fairly unpleansant. You couch your justification in emotive language that had it been used in this context: "is drawing an offensive cartoon of the spiritual figurehead of a religion that preaches intolerance and was the justification for the deaths of thousands of innocent people in the Twin Towers something to get worked up about?"

You can't have it both ways.

Ooh, that's very nicely done... 10/10.

[Big Ed]

But muslims keep marking their card, don't they? USS Cole, US Embassy in Nairobi, 9/11, Madrid, Theo van Gogh, 11/7, 25/7, Jyllands Posten (hundreds of deaths in protests in the Middle East about ****ing CARTOONS), death for apostasy, women can't drive, 'behead those who insult islam' 'freedom go to hell' 'islam will dominate the world' sharia law in britain, etc., etc.

They just keep on and on and on and it's ****ing boring as well as dangerous. If islam is a religion of peace will you please stop blowing people up?

If you had added the word 'some' after 'But' then fair enough but my whole issue with those who (rightly) take issue with Muslim extremists, is the inference that the rest of the 1 billion Muslims on the planet in some way acquiesce and that whilst not perpetrating the acts of violence, secretly are pleased that they occur.
You may say that that is not what you meant, but I think that it is important to clarify.

[magpie1892]

If you had added the word 'some' after 'But' then fair enough but my whole issue with those who (rightly) take issue with Muslim extremists, is the inference that the rest of the 1 billion Muslims on the planet in some way acquiesce and that whilst not perpetrating the acts of violence, secretly are pleased that they occur.
You may say that that is not what you meant, but I think that it is important to clarify.

You're right of course. 'Some' muslims.

[Sir David Gray]

First of all, apologies for taking so long to reply to this. I attempted to write a response last week but I encountered a few issues whilst typing it out so I postponed it for a few days.


Ah, this old chesnut. Excellent.

This can be incredibly simply put. Racism has nothing to do with whether a particular group of people constitute a 'race' as 'race' does not exist as a meaningful way in which to categorise human beings. 'Race' does not exist; as soon as you accept that it does you've accepted one of the central tents of racist thought. You don't have to believe me, either, feel free to consult the Human Genome Project on the matter, there is no biological or genetic basis for 'race'.

Racism is nothing to do with attitudes to actually existing races of people but to do with the construction of 'races' followed by the construction of racist attitudes towards them. Racism is never, and never has been, dependent on races actually existing.

Perhaps unknowingly, you've actually done something quite revealing there. Racism isn't allowed anymore, oh no, but Muslims aren't a race so we can say and do whatever the **** we like to them and it can never be 'in your eyes', racist.

This isn't something that is exclusive to Muslims 'in my eyes'. I don't believe Christians are a race either so if a Muslim makes a few derogatory comments towards a Christian, I would not look upon those comments as "racist".




:confused:

I've just said how. Did you stop reading after, 'The Jerry Springer the Opera comparison is a false one.'?

No I didn't stop reading, I saw your explanation for why you thought the comparison was false, I just asked that question because I was trying to highlight how surprised I was that you thought there was no relation between the two examples because I thought the link was fairly obvious. I realise this isn't always easy to show on an internet forum and the meaning of some comments can be quite hard to decipher.


The rest of the post has almost nothing to do with what I've written, but anyway, I'll reply to small bit that does.

I think my post was relevant to what you wrote. I addressed many of the points that you had made in your post and I also made reference to points that you had made earlier in the thread.


What does the 'as far as I'm concerned' mean there? What's that based on?

I think you've just done there what you accused me of doing. :wink: I've gone on to explain why the reaction of the Muslims, in my opinion. has nothing to do with their "precarious position in European society".


If you actually looked at the objections of the Danish Muslims who made the objections (not the odd maniac with 'behead those who insult Islam' placard) you would categorically see that their objections were not, fundamentally, to the depiction of Muhammed. As I've already stated, the Danish delegation to the Arab League presented large reproductions of the cartoons (along with speeches on the rise of Islamophobia in Denmark, the success that right-wing racist parties were getting by trading on Islamophobia, and the increasing instances of anti-Muslim violence) - that doesn't suggest the depictions of Muhammed were the main gripe, does it?



But I don't imagine you're particularly interested in what they actually have to say themselves, you'd much rather impute your own reason for their objection.

Let me just say this, I never have and never will criticise any Muslim who puts forward a reasonable and mature protest against things that they believe are mocking their faith. I would expect anyone who has strongly held beliefs to defend those beliefs against those who attempt to belittle them. Regardless of whether they are outraged about the depiction of Muhammad in the form of cartoons or showing concern about the rise of far-right parties who are opposed to Islam, as long as they address those issues in a non-violent manner, I will have no complaints.

Any time I come on here to criticise Islam, it is to show my displeasure towards the extremists who give out death threats and act violently against anyone who makes any critical remarks about their religion.

I have no doubts at all that there are Muslim groups who do take a mature approach to dealing with such issues and denounce any kind of violent response.

However the "behead those who insult Islam" sorts are the most vocal and therefore always attract the most attention. I would say that the people who take part in that sort of behaviour, number a bit more than just the "odd maniac" though.

[magpie1892]

However the "behead those who insult Islam" sorts are the most vocal and therefore always attract the most attention. I would say that the people who take part in that sort of behaviour, number a bit more than just the "odd maniac" though.

Hear, hear.

LH would have us believe that there were only 'one or two' miscreants in the video of the Swedish fracas. He is, of course, not kidding anyone. Except himself.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Ooh, that's very nicely done... 10/10.

Except, of course, that as I've said – it doesn’t apply.


First of all, apologies for taking so long to reply to this. I attempted to write a response last week but I encountered a few issues whilst typing it out so I postponed it for a few days.

This isn't something that is exclusive to Muslims 'in my eyes'. I don't believe Christians are a race either so if a Muslim makes a few derogatory comments towards a Christian, I would not look upon those comments as "racist".

Strangely, it seems you've highlighted that bit of the post and ignored the rest of it. Christians aren't a race, no. Neither are Muslims, neither are Jews, neither are black people or any other example you'd prefer. Because, as I've said, there's no such thing as a 'race' – it does not exist, as was fairly clearly stated in post you quoted. It's got nothing to do with what 'you believe'. But, as I've already said, racism is nothing whatsoever to do with 'race' actually existing.

So, if you want to deny the existence of a certain form of racism – Islamophobia, it would be necessary for you to either point out some substantive differences between that and something like anti-Semitism, or for you to put in the requisite amount of time and effort to prove that the scientists working on the Human Genome Project are wrong in their conclusion that there is no biological or genetic determinant for 'race'. Just constantly insisting that Muslims aren't a race couldn’t be more meaningless.


No I didn't stop reading, I saw your explanation for why you thought the comparison was false, I just asked that question because I was trying to highlight how surprised I was that you thought there was no relation between the two examples because I thought the link was fairly obvious. I realise this isn't always easy to show on an internet forum and the meaning of some comments can be quite hard to decipher.

I think my post was relevant to what you wrote. I addressed many of the points that you had made in your post and I also made reference to points that you had made earlier in the thread.

But the vast majority of your post did have nothing to do with what I said. I've explained why I think the comparison is false, and you haven't done anything to dispute that.


I think you've just done there what you accused me of doing. :wink:

You're right, fair cop and apologies.


I've gone on to explain why the reaction of the Muslims, in my opinion. has nothing to do with their "precarious position in European society".

Well, you didn't really - you just said why 'as far as you can see' that isn't the case and followed it with some pretty unconvincing follow-ups. It’s got nothing to do with the fact that there might be nations in which Islam is a ruling ideology, it’s to do with the societies in which such things happen.

You’ve completely ignored the defence of the organisation which was established to lead the protests against the cartoons, look it up and see what it was about and then we can go on.


Let me just say this, I never have and never will criticise any Muslim who puts forward a reasonable and mature protest against things that they believe are mocking their faith. I would expect anyone who has strongly held beliefs to defend those beliefs against those who attempt to belittle them. Regardless of whether they are outraged about the depiction of Muhammad in the form of cartoons or showing concern about the rise of far-right parties who are opposed to Islam, as long as they address those issues in a non-violent manner, I will have no complaints.

Any time I come on here to criticise Islam, it is to show my displeasure towards the extremists who give out death threats and act violently against anyone who makes any critical remarks about their religion.

I have no doubts at all that there are Muslim groups who do take a mature approach to dealing with such issues and denounce any kind of violent response.

However the "behead those who insult Islam" sorts are the most vocal and therefore always attract the most attention. I would say that the people who take part in that sort of behaviour, number a bit more than just the "odd maniac" though.

They're not the most vocal, they're the people who sell stories, so they're the ones who you hear about, and you're evidently not very interested in finding out if it's representative or otherwise. And they're also the people that you're meant to think are the most vocal.

People automatically associate protests over the Mohammed cartoons with placards stating 'behead those who insult Islam' - I'm not particularly surprised that people make that association, but it's not exactly a good thing for the debate. Practically no-one who hears the words 'Mohammed cartoons protest' thinks of the Danish delegation to the Arab League or the Unity protest in London. Because that's not meant to be brought to mind.

And then, of course, you get the sentiment expressed a couple of times on this thread – that unless 'they' (the massed, malevolent Other) go out of their way to demur from the spook riddled al-Muhajiroun divs, 'they' can be considered guilty by association or somehow to be held collectively accountable. It also serves to completely shift the focus of discourse away from what is actually important.


Hear, hear.

LH would have us believe that there were only 'one or two' miscreants in the video of the Swedish fracas. He is, of course, not kidding anyone. Except himself.

I can only imagine how pleased FH must be to have someone like you cheering him on.

[Twa Cairpets]

[FONT=Verdana]They're not the most vocal, they're the people who sell stories, so they're the ones who you hear about, and you're evidently not very interested in finding out if it's representative or otherwise. And they're also the people that you're meant to think are the most vocal.

People automatically associate protests over the Mohammed cartoons with placards stating 'behead those who insult Islam' - I'm not particularly surprised that people make that association, but it's not exactly a good thing for the debate. Practically no-one who hears the words 'Mohammed cartoons protest' thinks of the Danish delegation to the Arab League or the Unity protest in London. Because that's not meant to be brought to mind.

And then, of course, you get the sentiment expressed a couple of times on this thread – that unless 'they' (the massed, malevolent Other) go out of their way to demur from the spook riddled al-Muhajiroun divs, 'they' can be considered guilty by association or somehow to be held collectively accountable. It also serves to completely shift the focus of discourse away from what is actually important.


This is a very singular interpretation.

You seem to be saying that the only reason the extremists get coverage is because of some media conspiracy to portray islam as extreme. I don't believe the media do do this, but even if it is accurate, they are surely merely fulfilling the wishes of the protestors? If the placard wavers didnt want coverage, they wouldnt be out waving their inflammatory messages. As I've mentioned before, I dont think it is the poor dupes who chant and march that are the danger, it is the people organising them behind the scenes.

What has never been addressed on this thread or in the mainstream media is the question of how genuinely offensive these cartoons are to mainstream islam. Does it merit a "tut-tut" or is it genuinely the cause of frothing fury and outrage? Maybe this is why the moderate reaction isnt covered in the media - because it is moderate and minor.

[Twa Cairpets]

Sigh, but it is necessary now, isn't it? And you're also going to have to back up your position if you're going to claim I'm being simplistic and naive. The important questions really are as simple it gets;

1) Did the foundation of the Israeli state necessitate inflicting a profound injustice on the Palestinian people? No genuine study of history can answer this in any way other than 'yes'. Even staunchly Zionist historians such as Benny Morris do not dispute this historical reality (although, of course, some kooks such as Daniel Pipes, Joan Peters and Alan Dershowitz do – but no serious historian does so).

2) Does this injustice continue to this day? Again, I don’t see any way to answer that other than in the affirmative – siege, occupation, continued settling of land in contravention of international law, the denial of basic human rights and, most importantly, the continued denial of the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

And then you move on to the more complex question of, 'what can be done to right this wrong?' But you can't get to this question without giving the correct answers to the first two.

The problem is that people, you apparently included, seek to create a 'balance' where no such balance does or can exist. There’s nothing politically 'mature' about attempting to do so, all it does is exculpate and normalise an abnormal situation. Equally, there is nothing naive or simplistic about recognising genuine injustice where it exists and wanting/expecting something to be done about it. I'm relatively confident that, at some point in the future, the injustice committed against the Palestinian people will go the way of apartheid, segregation in the U.S., legalised anti-Catholicism in the north of Ireland, and any other number of examples, in making that transition from 'complicated' to 'unjust' as soon as it's decreed from on-high that this is how it should be viewed.

The other point, which crystallizes rather than simplifies matters, is to imagine if you yourself would put up with what the Palestinian people have been expected to put up with – or in fact to think if anyone, anywhere in the world, would put up with it. Would you accept the legitimacy of a project which sought and achieved the ethnic cleansing of an already populated land in which you lived, in the name of establishing a state which was predicated on the exclusion of those already living in that land, including yourself? I repeat, it is not a complicated issue and it has been a fantastically adroit piece of ideological legerdemain to make it appear as if it is.

Oh, and also, a great deal of the enormous amount of injustice could be attenuated just by people actually obeying international law, so that's another way in which it is incredibly simple.

So, in short, what do you want me to do? Deny what I can see is a huge injustice just so that I don’t appear overly partisan, just so as to create some bizarre constructed 'balance'?

No, I dont want you to do anything. Your passion for the subject is clear, and as I've mentioned earlier, i dont have a strong opinion ether way on the issue. However, the most telling statement in your answer above is the first point relating to the foundation of the Israeli state. It strikes me as a fairly arbitrary start date to apportion blame or justification for the behaviours of any particular race, creed or religion. If i was a Palestinian. i am absolutely sure i would view my treatment as appalling. Im equally sure however that if i was a pre-Israel Jew, I would have equally entrenched opinions relating to my status and treatment.

Your rather patronsing "Sigh" at the start of the post does you no justice, as does the constant challenging to back up my stance. I hope Ive done that repeatedly and politely. Im not seeking to create any balance - I would hope, however, that where balance exists I choose not to ignore it if it is unsympathetic to my viewpoint.


[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]I'm fairly sure you must know that's a false analogy - because you're usually pretty adept at picking such things up in others' posts, and because you’re not an idiot

Thank you, I try not to be too idiotic. We wont agree here on the effigy burning/cartoon outrage analogy, but just to clarify I wasnt trying to justify the merit of either. I was looking at from the point of view of staged events of orchestrated outrage being equally open to misintepretation by those who want to be outraged. The religious right in the States and the Daily Mail readers here can and will pick up the "moral outrage" inherent in flag burning in exactly the same way that more extreme clerics and religious leaders will claim deep offense at the Danish Cartoons. Two sides of the same very unpleasant coin, in my opinion.

[LiverpoolHibs]

This is a very singular interpretation.

You seem to be saying that the only reason the extremists get coverage is because of some media conspiracy to portray islam as extreme. I don't believe the media do do this, but even if it is accurate, they are surely merely fulfilling the wishes of the protestors? If the placard wavers didnt want coverage, they wouldnt be out waving their inflammatory messages. As I've mentioned before, I dont think it is the poor dupes who chant and march that are the danger, it is the people organising them behind the scenes.

No, I don't. I explicitly stated that people partially make that association because that's what they see, because that's what sells papers (presumably people find it titilating, vicariously thrilling or something). I don't think there's a media 'conspiracy' because that's not how these things work. However, it seems to be the thing to think that racism (not that I'm saying just showing a picture of such protests is racist, that would be ludicrous, but it is part of a wider process) is just an irrational belief held by individuals and organisations - certain sections of the press, for example - or that it is the 'wrong' response to a real threat. And there's an element of truth to that; more importantly, though, is its use as a socio-economic disciplining tool. That is to say, one tactic of many in the game of consolidating and increasing the socio-economic power of a certain class. The media are, to differing extents, supportive of this process and therefore aid in the ideological tactics used to bring it about - racism, xenophobia, immigrant-bashing etc. etc.*

It's nothing to do with conspiracism.

* By the way, I fully understand that some people will find this laughable. Because they like to think that class and class interests don't really exist anymore.


What has never been addressed on this thread or in the mainstream media is the question of how genuinely offensive these cartoons are to mainstream islam. Does it merit a "tut-tut" or is it genuinely the cause of frothing fury and outrage? Maybe this is why the moderate reaction isnt covered in the media - because it is moderate and minor.

That would certainly be part of it, I'd imagine.


No, I dont want you to do anything. Your passion for the subject is clear, and as I've mentioned earlier, i dont have a strong opinion ether way on the issue. However, the most telling statement in you answer above is the your point relating to the foundation of the Israeli state. It strikes me as a fairly arbitrary start date to apportion blame or justification for the behaviours of any particular race, creed or religion. If i was a Palestinian. i am absolutely sure i would view my treatment as appalling. Im equally sure however that if i was a pre-Israel Jew, I would have equally entrenched opinions relating to my status and treatment.

Apologies, but this is a bizarre sentence.

Firstly, no-one is attempting to 'apportion blame to a particular race, creed or religion' - that's a pretty distasteful suggestion - there is no necessary overlap between Judaism and Zionism.

Secondly, I have no idea how you can consider that date/event to be arbitrary - it is completely the opposite. Am I misunderstanding you somewhere?

If you were a Jew living in Europe prior to the establishment of Israel you would have every right to be aggrieved at your treatment by white Europeans, it would be pretty odd if you weren't. You, or anyone else, would have less right to think that the solution to this injustice would be to settle an already populated land, displace the existing populace (who, incidentally have had no role whatsoever in the injustice committed against you) and establish a state predicated on their exclusion. That's pretty axiomatic to me and I genuinely struggle to understand why it isn't for everyone else.


Your rather patronsing "Sigh" at the start of the post does you no justice, as does the constant challenging to back up my stance. I hope Ive done that repeatedly and politely. Im not seeking to create any balance - I would hope, however, that where balance exists I choose not to ignore it if it is unsympathetic to my viewpoint.

The 'sigh' wasn't patronising, I don't think. It wasn't even really aimed at you.

I also don't really see why asking someone to back up their stance (i.e. on why anything I've said is simplistic and naive - which you didn't do and still haven't done) would reflect badly on me.

Presumably the last bit is directed at me (apologies if not), so what am I ignoring that is unsympathetic to my viewpoint?


Thank you, I try not to be too idiotic. We wont agree here on the effigy burning/cartoon outrage analogy, but just to clarify I wasnt trying to justify the merit of either. I was looking at from the point of view of staged events of orchestrated outrage being equally open to misintepretation by those who want to be outraged. The religious right in the States and the Daily Mail readers here can and will pick up the "moral outrage" inherent in flag burning in exactly the same way that more extreme clerics and religious leaders will claim deep offense at the Danish Cartoons. Two sides of the same very unpleasant coin, in my opinion.

I know you weren't.

And didn't you agree with me a few posts back that the 'cartoon controversy' was very little to do with the fact that someone drew Muhammed?


Perhaps. I am sure he'd rather have 'someone like you' cheering him on - puerile, conceited, naive, narrow-minded and militant.

Apologies for responding in kind.

Ha. No, respond however you like.

[magpie1892]

Ha. No, respond however you like.

Speaks volumes that you would reply to a response I had already deleted. More fool me for trying to be adult about your attempt - 'someone like you' - to label me.

The hyposcrisy of your trying to pigeonhole me while rounding with venom on anyone who even thinks about doing the same thing to your beloved muslim nutters is breathtaking.

But not surprising - coming from someone like you!

[LiverpoolHibs]

Speaks volumes that you would reply to a response I had already deleted. More fool me for trying to be adult about your attempt - 'someone like you' - to label me.

The hyposcrisy of your trying to pigeonhole me while rounding with venom on anyone who even thinks about doing the same thing to your beloved muslim nutters is breathtaking.

But not surprising - coming from someone like you!

I quoted it before you deleted it, so I don't think I've done anything wrong. Do you want me to delete it?

[magpie1892]

I quoted it before you deleted it, so I don't think I've done anything wrong. Do you want me to delete it?


Nah, the fact that I deleted it a good 40 mins before you responded typifies your M.O. so should stay for instructive purposes! Do what you will though, I doubt you're really seeking direction from 'someone like me'.

[Twa Cairpets]

... The media are, to differing extents, supportive of this process and therefore aid in the ideological tactics used to bring it about - racism, xenophobia, immigrant-bashing etc. etc.*...

Elements of the media yes. The media as a whole, no, I dont think so. If one chooses to only expose oneself to those media outlets that reflect extant prejudices, then that is not the fault of the wider media (not a pop at you - a general statement). The danger is to generalise across all outlets.



Apologies, but this is a bizarre sentence.

Firstly, no-one is attempting to 'apportion blame to a particular race, creed or religion' - that's a pretty distasteful suggestion - there is no necessary overlap between Judaism and Zionism.

I worded my initial post very carefully to avoid such assumptions being made. I did not mention Judaism, Zionism, Palestinianian nationalism or Islam in this context - it's you who has made the assumption, and chosen to find it distasteful.


Secondly, I have no idea how you can consider that date/event to be arbitrary - it is completely the opposite. Am I misunderstanding you somewhere?

It is arbitrary because you have chosen, it seems to me, to select this date as being the start point for one set of particular grievances. The situation prior to that occurence could not be described as stable, and in an area which is rife with fundamentalism, lack of tolerance, distrust and huge geo-political significance as a result of its religious geography/history as well as its proximity to natural resources, to reduce it down to an oppressor/oppressed struggle is simplistic. You may not agree with this take on the situation (in fact I know you won't agree), however, without necessarily agreeing with your stance, I do find your view admirable from the point of view of its principled defence of human rights. But in terms of that stance being beneficial in being part of a solution for those who are in a position to effect change, it is unhelpful as it has at its core an unbending resistance to seeing anything from the viewpoint of the other side.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Nah, the fact that I deleted it a good 40 mins before you responded typifies your M.O. so should stay for instructive purposes! Do what you will though, I doubt you're really seeking direction from 'someone like me'.

I don't understand, I couldn't have known you'd deleted it when I quoted it. It was part of quite a long post that took a while and evidently you deleted it in the course of me replying to TwoCarpets and yourself. I have since offered to delete it if you wish. How does that 'typify my M.O.'?


Elements of the media yes. The media as a whole, no, I dont think so. If one chooses to only expose oneself to those media outlets that reflect extant prejudices, then that is not the fault of the wider media (not a pop at you - a general statement). The danger is to generalise across all outlets.

The vast, vast majority.


I worded my initial post very carefully to avoid such assumptions being made. I did not mention Judaism, Zionism, Palestinianian nationalism or Islam in this context - it's you who has made the assumption, and chosen to find it distasteful.

It's welcome that you attempted to word it carefully but you didn't do so. You didn't mention them, no, but you did say that I was trying to apportion blame to a particular 'race, creed or religion' - I haven't made any assumption, it's all right there.

As I said, I am not attempting to apportion blame to the Jewish people or the Jewish religion. And, again as I've said, it is a distasteful suggestion. Zionism is a political project informed by a certain conception of Judaism. The is no necessary overlap between the two.


It is arbitrary because you have chosen, it seems to me, to select this date as being the start point for one set of particular grievances. The situation prior to that occurence could not be described as stable, and in an area which is rife with fundamentalism, lack of tolerance, distrust and huge geo-political significance as a result of its religious geography/history as well as its proximity to natural resources, to reduce it down to an oppressor/oppressed struggle is simplistic. You may not agree with this take on the situation (in fact I know you won't agree), however, without necessarily agreeing with your stance, I do find your view admirable from the point of view of its principled defence of human rights. But in terms of that stance being beneficial in being part of a solution for those who are in a position to effect change, it is unhelpful as it has at its core an unbending resistance to seeing anything from the viewpoint of the other side.

I can never understand people thinking certain stances are admirable when they fundamentally disagree, but hey-ho.

No it wasn't stable, so if you like the change could be made to the beginning of the Zionist project to settle an already populated land, displace the existing populace and establish a state predicated on their exclusion. The foundation of the state is just the legal culmination and as such is anything other than an arbitrary date to choose (the fact that it resulted in the Nakba, the mas expulsion and the denile of the right of return - which as at the heart of the conflict).

Yet again we've got this 'not seeing the other side' ting that people constantly say without explaining what on earth they're talking about. What would you like me to see, or what am I going out of my way to ignore, that is likely to (or should) change how I view the conflict?

[Twa Cairpets]

The vast, vast majority.
In your opinion. I dont agree, but there you go.


It's welcome that you attempted to word it carefully but you didn't do so. You didn't mention them, no, but you did say that I was trying to apportion blame to a particular 'race, creed or religion' - I haven't made any assumption, it's all right there.

Sorry LH, but you are choosing to interpret this in a very defensive manner. I've said repeatedly that I havent a position on the rights and wrongs of this issue. You've chosen to assume it is an attack on your position, it was not intended as such - it was meant from the position that whichever side of the debate you are on, it is an arbitrary date, and it is, for the reasons I've outlined.[/quote]


As I said, I am not attempting to apportion blame to the Jewish people or the Jewish religion. And, again as I've said, it is a distasteful suggestion. Zionism is a political project informed by a certain conception of Judaism. The is no necessary overlap between the two. I'm not saying you are (others might, but I certainly haven't). You can continue to beat up this as a straw man if you wish but it is entirely irrelevant to any point ive tried to make.


I can never understand people thinking certain stances are admirable when they fundamentally disagree, but hey-ho.

Depressing, and very illustrative of the points I was trying to make. (Also wrong, I don't fundamentally disagree with any of the points you are trying to make. There is a difference between not necessarily agreeing and fundamentally disagreeing). There are loads of examples where it is possible to admire something you disgaree with. I think religion is fundamentally pointless, but can admire the personal sacrifice and dedication of the truly devout. I disagreed at a very fundamental level with Margaret Thatcher's policy, but it would be impossible not to respect the force and drive with which she implemented her policies. It does not mean you have to agree, but to dismiss alternative positions as automatically being of less worth solely because it is different to yours is arrogant. If it is a position that is demonstrably, objectively and unequivocally wrong, then you have a point, but this whole subject is one that does not, in my view, lend itself to such objective and unequivocal analysis.


Yet again we've got this 'not seeing the other side' ting that people constantly say without explaining what on earth they're talking about. What would you like me to see, or what am I going out of my way to ignore, that is likely to (or should) change how I view the conflict?
To see the other side (and again, I stress, to gain an understanding of the other sides position is not to agree, concede or defer) is, in any conflict that will not end with the complete defeat of the other side, a vital piece of negotiating. At the very least, to be able to form cogent rebuttals of the position of the opponent other than "no you are wrong". if you think that a negotiated settlement of some description is not desirable, then fair enough, thats your stance, and we'll end the thread here. In terms of the specific areas for you to review, I am sure there are countless sources which other people on this thread are much better placed to provide than me.

But again, you are trying to make specific the general point I started with regarding the cartoons. The assumption of absolute correctness and no apparent acceptance of any validity or understanding of the opposite view does not help move things forward.

[hibsbollah]

but to dismiss alternative positions as automatically being of less worth solely because it is different to yours is arrogant.

I look forward to this attitude being evidenced in your future contributions to the homeopathy debate in that case:agree:

[RyeSloan]

I look forward to this attitude being evidenced in your future contributions to the homeopathy debate in that case:agree:

The medical evidence against the efficacy of homeopathy treatments is indisputable...I don't really think the Israel/Palestine conflict is quite the same do you!!?

[(((Fergus)))]

The medical evidence against the efficacy of homeopathy treatments is indisputable...I don't really think the Israel/Palestine conflict is quite the same do you!!?

Depends who's looking at the evidence and what their intention is - on both counts.

[Twa Cairpets]

I look forward to this attitude being evidenced in your future contributions to the homeopathy debate in that case:agree:

Cunningly anticipating such a comment when i was writing this, I did very pointedly put in the following: "...If it is a position that is demonstrably, objectively and unequivocally wrong, then you have a point, but this whole subject is one that does not, in my view, lend itself to such objective and unequivocal analysis...." I believe that their is clearly demonstrated, objective and unequivocal evidence to defend the position that Homeopathy does not work - it is a measurable process where opinions can be made on the evidence of absolutes.

The Cartoons controversy / Israel / Palestine debate is quite clearly one that does not lend itself to purely scientific measurement, and I would never suggest it is. I know I take what is seen a hard-line stance on homeopathy, but it is backed up by mountains of black and white, dispassionate, unbiased scientific research, and challenged by precisely zero evidence to the contrary. On the debat ein this thread, both sides can put up arguments as to the righteousness or otherwise of their cause - it will never be provable, and comes down to opinion. One can, and should, have opinion on moral issues, you cant have an opinion on scientific fact - I would love to believe that gravity doesnt apply to me for example, but I cant.

Finally, in defence of myself, when i get interested in something, I do try always to look at the other side. Having a skeptical outlook does not mean you instantly refute anything you dont understand, but you challenge things you find questionable and look into it for yourself. I think looking at the evidence of people of different mindsets is critical to challenging your own assumptions.

[Twa Cairpets]

Depends who's looking at the evidence and what their intention is - on both counts.

See above. Observer bias is absolutely correct for Palestine/Israel, very much less so for science. The data is what the data is, unless you disagree with concept of statistics, the scientific method and evidence based decision making.

[(((Fergus)))]

See above. Observer bias is absolutely correct for Palestine/Israel, very much less so for science. The data is what the data is, unless you disagree with concept of statistics, the scientific method and evidence based decision making.

Observer bias can be present in science in the selection of which data types and timeframes to admit/exclude and in how to interpret the data you collect. I think it all comes down to intent; the purer the intent, the purer the observation.

Just my opinion mind you. :wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

Observer bias can be present in science in the selection of which data types and timeframes to admit/exclude and in how to interpret the data you collect. I think it all comes down to intent; the purer the intent, the purer the observation.
Just my opinion mind you. :wink:

You're right of course, observer bias does exist, but the beauty is when it (observer bias) kicks in, and results are distorted or erroneous, the scientific community through the scientific method sees this and refutes the claims made. By way of example I offer you the Polywater controversy, Cold Fusion and the MMR/autism fiasco.

[hibsbollah]

Cunningly anticipating such a comment when i was writing this, I did very pointedly put in the following: "...If it is a position that is demonstrably, objectively and unequivocally wrong, then you have a point, but this whole subject is one that does not, in my view, lend itself to such objective and unequivocal analysis...."

:faf: I cunningly anticipated your cunning anticipation, and I could see a mile off what you were doing with your second paragraph. ("...unless that position is so far apart from mine i can't tolerate it, then I reserve the right to mock mercilessly" could be an accurate translation if I was feeling cynical:wink:) 'Objective and unequivocal' depends on who is doing the assessment, and science is absolutely rampant with bias and partiality.

As long as you're committed to extending courtesy to those with a different point of view to yours I can hardly complain though...

[Twa Cairpets]

:faf: I cunningly anticipated your cunning anticipation, and I could see a mile off what you were doing with your second paragraph. ("...unless that position is so far apart from mine i can't tolerate it, then I reserve the right to mock mercilessly" could be an accurate translation if I was feeling cynical:wink:) 'Objective and unequivocal' depends on who is doing the assessment, and science is absolutely rampant with bias and partiality.

As long as you're committed to extending courtesy to those with a different point of view to yours I can hardly complain though...

:greengrin

Loving your work, and when have you ever been cynical? I do think however that the point is valid. I'm making a very clear distinction here. I think/hope that I've been consistent over various threads on where science can be used to support a stance and where it can't or shouldn't, and I would hold to that regardless of my personal views on any topic.

Politics and morality are by an large matters of personal choice. The evidence of good science isnt. Bad science generally gets found out. No actually that's wrong. You can choose to believe the evidence of bad science or no science, but it doesnt make your choice correct.

Sweeping right back to the point of the thread, whether or not the cartoons were offensive or whether they weren't, and whether the retribution visited on the cartoonist was justified in the eyes of islam or not is something that could be debated ad infinitum, and no absolute answer of inerrrant correctness could be found because it (from a scientific viewpoint) doesnt exist.

As for courtesy, absolutely on matters such as this, because I can no more disprove any LH's arguments than he can disprove yours or khibs or Fergus's. He may rail against them with passion and venom, as they may rail against his views, but ultimately it is an opinion. If people refuse to accept the empirical evidence, however, and put up none of their own for matters of science, then it becomes harder to continue to be courteous (although I do try, honest).

[LiverpoolHibs]

In your opinion. I dont agree, but there you go.

Indeed.


Sorry LH, but you are choosing to interpret this in a very defensive manner. I've said repeatedly that I havent a position on the rights and wrongs of this issue. You've chosen to assume it is an attack on your position, it was not intended as such - it was meant from the position that whichever side of the debate you are on, it is an arbitrary date, and it is, for the reasons I've outlined.

I am responding defensively (and for good reason), but I am not interpreting it defensively.


I'm not saying you are (others might, but I certainly haven't). You can continue to beat up this as a straw man if you wish but it is entirely irrelevant to any point ive tried to make.

It is, but it was an aside that needed to be challenged.


Depressing, and very illustrative of the points I was trying to make. (Also wrong, I don't fundamentally disagree with any of the points you are trying to make. There is a difference between not necessarily agreeing and fundamentally disagreeing). There are loads of examples where it is possible to admire something you disgaree with. I think religion is fundamentally pointless, but can admire the personal sacrifice and dedication of the truly devout. I disagreed at a very fundamental level with Margaret Thatcher's policy, but it would be impossible not to respect the force and drive with which she implemented her policies. It does not mean you have to agree, but to dismiss alternative positions as automatically being of less worth solely because it is different to yours is arrogant. If it is a position that is demonstrably, objectively and unequivocally wrong, then you have a point, but this whole subject is one that does not, in my view, lend itself to such objective and unequivocal analysis.

Ok, I'll bend a little on this after having thought about it a bit. The religious example is a good one, the Thatcher one less so - if you respect her 'force and drive' whilst doing things you disagreed with morally and politically would you respect the 'force and drive' of a Hitler or a Pinochet (not, of course, that I'm suggesting she should be considered on their level)? That's a strange thing to admire - I don't think there's anything intrinsically admirable about 'force and drive'.

The example that came to my mind would be someone like Edmund Burke - I disagree with pretty much everything he ever wrote (well, that's not true, but for the sake of argument...) but I admire and respect him because he was a fantastic writer and thinker. But it's not, for example, his support for the Ancien Regime that I admire - I couldn't admire that, as a political stance, less - it's the brilliance of his writing in support of it.

Which is all a bit different.


To see the other side (and again, I stress, to gain an understanding of the other sides position is not to agree, concede or defer) is, in any conflict that will not end with the complete defeat of the other side, a vital piece of negotiating. At the very least, to be able to form cogent rebuttals of the position of the opponent other than "no you are wrong". if you think that a negotiated settlement of some description is not desirable, then fair enough, thats your stance, and we'll end the thread here. In terms of the specific areas for you to review, I am sure there are countless sources which other people on this thread are much better placed to provide than me.

It depends what you mean by 'negotiated settlement'. I've stated a number of times on the IDF thread, my opposition to a two-state solution and the reasons for that opposition.

The rest of this is mostly, apologies, fluff - only getting to the point on the last couple of sentences. As a general rule, I don't think it's very helpful in a debate/exchange for people to suggest things such as me being purblind to the 'other side' without being able to back that up with a substantive example of me ignoring something which doesn't suit my position.


But again, you are trying to make specific the general point I started with regarding the cartoons. The assumption of absolute correctness and no apparent acceptance of any validity or understanding of the opposite view does not help move things forward.

Of course I'm trying to make it specific! Because otherwise - and as, I think, has been established - it's just a boring bromide trotted out without the person suggesting it or the person having it suggested to them having any idea what it means in real terms.