We are all danes now
February 5, 2006 4:32 PM Subscribe
We Are All Danes Now is a great editorial run today in the Boston Globe. Why does radical Islam suffer such a fundamental disconnect with the rest of the world?
Ok, it's Jacoby, I read it. It's a pretty shallow summary of events that's already a couple of days behind the story, about what you'd expect from a newspaper op-ed writer, and offers nothing that hasn't been said a helluva lot better and with more depth in any number of comments in the threads we've already had here. Have you been reading those, Brockstar?
posted by mediareport at 4:37 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by mediareport at 4:37 PM on February 5, 2006
This situation is Houellebecqesque. ie - Pathetic and laughable but also serious when you're forced to think about it, or someone forces you to.
posted by fire&wings at 4:53 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by fire&wings at 4:53 PM on February 5, 2006
I have to agree with mediareport. Jacoby seems to have strung together a collection of trite polemical slogans and not much more:
Make no mistake: This story is not going away, and neither is the Islamofascist threat. The freedom of speech we take for granted is under attack, and it will vanish if it is not bravely defended...Like it or not, we are all Danes now.
Ich bin ein Copenhagener?
posted by ori at 5:00 PM on February 5, 2006
Make no mistake: This story is not going away, and neither is the Islamofascist threat. The freedom of speech we take for granted is under attack, and it will vanish if it is not bravely defended...Like it or not, we are all Danes now.
Ich bin ein Copenhagener?
posted by ori at 5:00 PM on February 5, 2006
The same is true of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Mormons, and Muslims: They don't lash out in violence when their religious sensibilities are offended.
Fixed that for him.
posted by wakko at 5:03 PM on February 5, 2006
Fixed that for him.
posted by wakko at 5:03 PM on February 5, 2006
And if the jihadis get their way, it will be swept aside everywhere by the censorship and intolerance of sharia.
There are people still afraid of this happening? I'm done reading TFA.
posted by wakko at 5:05 PM on February 5, 2006
There are people still afraid of this happening? I'm done reading TFA.
posted by wakko at 5:05 PM on February 5, 2006
Perhaps a better and more interesting question is: Why is radical Islam so incredibly common around the world, as compared to say more moderate versions?
People always say it's just a "few bad apples" and not representative of the religion as a whole, and that's true in a sense, but there are a whole lot more than just "a few" bad apples, and there's probably a reason for that.
posted by nightchrome at 5:16 PM on February 5, 2006
People always say it's just a "few bad apples" and not representative of the religion as a whole, and that's true in a sense, but there are a whole lot more than just "a few" bad apples, and there's probably a reason for that.
posted by nightchrome at 5:16 PM on February 5, 2006
Why does radical Islam suffer such a fundamental disconnect with the rest of the world?
All religious fundamentalists suffer a massive disconnect with the rest of the world.
posted by scarabic at 5:22 PM on February 5, 2006
All religious fundamentalists suffer a massive disconnect with the rest of the world.
posted by scarabic at 5:22 PM on February 5, 2006
fandango_matt, but you need more than a handful of people to torch an embassy or cause these riots in the streets. We're not talking about a difference between 4 on one side and 8 on the other. The radicals and the people who follow/listen to those radicals seem to be, if not a majority, then at least very close to one.
posted by nightchrome at 5:27 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by nightchrome at 5:27 PM on February 5, 2006
Someone needs to introduce our brave columnist to militant Hinduism.
posted by Firas at 5:27 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by Firas at 5:27 PM on February 5, 2006
Why is radical Islam so incredibly common around the world, as compared to say more moderate versions?
Even better is to not assume that is true, and rather make an honest inquiry that it is.
Given the general nature of the Middle East, it would not take many crazies to foment some serious upset.
posted by teece at 5:31 PM on February 5, 2006
Even better is to not assume that is true, and rather make an honest inquiry that it is.
Given the general nature of the Middle East, it would not take many crazies to foment some serious upset.
posted by teece at 5:31 PM on February 5, 2006
I echo those who say "Ain't it interesting that just when the Bush Reich regime looks like it finally might get skewered for something (in this case NSA spying), suddenly there's a dramatic world-wide resurgence of the 'Islamo-fascist' threat?"
This is not to say of course that there's nothing wrong with "Islamo-fascism." I'm as against that as I am against the more domestic varieties; it's just that the home-grown kind threatens us Americans more. I hate to say it, but for us what are a few Scandinavian embassies compared to the ongoing trashing of our rights and freedoms by a fascistoid government here at home?
The business of Americans is America. Focus, people, focus.
posted by davy at 5:32 PM on February 5, 2006
This is not to say of course that there's nothing wrong with "Islamo-fascism." I'm as against that as I am against the more domestic varieties; it's just that the home-grown kind threatens us Americans more. I hate to say it, but for us what are a few Scandinavian embassies compared to the ongoing trashing of our rights and freedoms by a fascistoid government here at home?
The business of Americans is America. Focus, people, focus.
posted by davy at 5:32 PM on February 5, 2006
The media's new-found "bravery" is bit one-sided. If representations of Jesus Christ had been used in a manner considered blasphemous to Christians, America would be up in arms about teaching the infidels a lesson.
posted by Rothko at 5:33 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by Rothko at 5:33 PM on February 5, 2006
fandango_matt, when you put it that way it makes me want to go pour myself a drink.
posted by nightchrome at 5:33 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by nightchrome at 5:33 PM on February 5, 2006
Reza Aslan has been on NPR a handful of times over the past month, recently he was asked about this series of events. He said (paraphrase) that what pissed him off was not the cartoon itself but that the cartoon was written and published in such a blatant effort to offend. It didn't say anything insightful or thought provoking, it was seemingly purposefully written to make a lot of people angry.
We accept all sorts of limitations on free speech, speech isn't truly "free" anywhere. The problem is finding where to draw the line. There has been a lot of ink written over the "islamofascists" reaction to the article, but not much written over why this piece of shite was published in the first place. People defend it as freedom of speech, but I'm not so sure it should hide behind that veil.
If one is going to be disrespectful towards a major religion that is currently prone to violent outbreaks in its' name I would think you should actually make a point.
The whole situations sad, from the publishing and republishing to the reaction.
posted by edgeways at 5:38 PM on February 5, 2006
We accept all sorts of limitations on free speech, speech isn't truly "free" anywhere. The problem is finding where to draw the line. There has been a lot of ink written over the "islamofascists" reaction to the article, but not much written over why this piece of shite was published in the first place. People defend it as freedom of speech, but I'm not so sure it should hide behind that veil.
If one is going to be disrespectful towards a major religion that is currently prone to violent outbreaks in its' name I would think you should actually make a point.
The whole situations sad, from the publishing and republishing to the reaction.
posted by edgeways at 5:38 PM on February 5, 2006
fandango_matt's theory goes out the window pretty fast. I'm only using Google, so statistics vary, but it seems accepted that Christians actually compose about 1/3rd of the world's population, while even Islamic websites only rank themselves at about 1 1/2 billion worldwide adherents. So that argument goes out.
As for Rothko's statement, well ... South Park has had Jesus on their show for years; Kevin Smith released Dogma, and Scorsese made the Last Temptation of Christ; sure, there were a lot of angry fundamentalists who wrote angry fundamentalist letters, but as far as I know nobody exploded over it.
At the same time, depictions of Mohammed or Allah are basically completely forbidden by Islam -- you won't find any stained glass windows of Mohammed in a mosque. So it makes sense that they would have a much larger problem with this particular issue.
nightchrome clarified what I believe is the real question here, which the editorial slant of the article itself obscures somewhat. The issue is not whether or not Islam has elements of radicalism and violence in a way that other religions don't -- Conquistadors, anyone? -- but whether Islam's problem with fundamentalists is worse than that other religions. Are Muslims somehow more prone to being intolerant, radical, or fascist because they're Muslims and not Christians?
It's also hard to separate religious factors from sociopolitical ones; Arabs and Europeans have a long-standing rivalry, for which basically any pretext seems to be fair game. This is probably just Greece vs. Troy 3,000 years in the future.
posted by Riovanes at 5:46 PM on February 5, 2006
As for Rothko's statement, well ... South Park has had Jesus on their show for years; Kevin Smith released Dogma, and Scorsese made the Last Temptation of Christ; sure, there were a lot of angry fundamentalists who wrote angry fundamentalist letters, but as far as I know nobody exploded over it.
At the same time, depictions of Mohammed or Allah are basically completely forbidden by Islam -- you won't find any stained glass windows of Mohammed in a mosque. So it makes sense that they would have a much larger problem with this particular issue.
nightchrome clarified what I believe is the real question here, which the editorial slant of the article itself obscures somewhat. The issue is not whether or not Islam has elements of radicalism and violence in a way that other religions don't -- Conquistadors, anyone? -- but whether Islam's problem with fundamentalists is worse than that other religions. Are Muslims somehow more prone to being intolerant, radical, or fascist because they're Muslims and not Christians?
It's also hard to separate religious factors from sociopolitical ones; Arabs and Europeans have a long-standing rivalry, for which basically any pretext seems to be fair game. This is probably just Greece vs. Troy 3,000 years in the future.
posted by Riovanes at 5:46 PM on February 5, 2006
Brackstar: Why does radical Islam suffer such a fundamental disconnect with the rest of the world?
Because that's what makes them radical, duh!
posted by JHarris at 5:46 PM on February 5, 2006
Because that's what makes them radical, duh!
posted by JHarris at 5:46 PM on February 5, 2006
These cartoons were published September 30. These riots are occurring now. Why? Simultaneous riots across continents months later? Extremists mullahs appear to be provoking this. Why? There is more going on here than free speech issues.
Offensive cartoons? I find the treatment of women in Iran, Saudi Arabia and other fundie Islamic states entirely offensive. Does anyone remember the Saudi girls burned alive in their school because the vice police wouldn't let them out improperly covered? That's real oppression.
posted by NO_the_BLUE_wire at 5:51 PM on February 5, 2006
Offensive cartoons? I find the treatment of women in Iran, Saudi Arabia and other fundie Islamic states entirely offensive. Does anyone remember the Saudi girls burned alive in their school because the vice police wouldn't let them out improperly covered? That's real oppression.
posted by NO_the_BLUE_wire at 5:51 PM on February 5, 2006
I echo those who say "Ain't it interesting that just when the Bush Reich regime looks like it finally might get skewered for something (in this case NSA spying), suddenly there's a dramatic world-wide resurgence of the 'Islamo-fascist' threat?"
This is not to say of course that there's nothing wrong with "Islamo-fascism." I'm as against that as I am against the more domestic varieties; it's just that the home-grown kind threatens us Americans more. I hate to say it, but for us what are a few Scandinavian embassies compared to the ongoing trashing of our rights and freedoms by a fascistoid government here at home?
The business of Americans is America. Focus, people, focus.
1. While this board is American dominated, it's not populated soley by Americans.
2. I actualy give a shit about what happens abroad, even if it dosen't directly impact me.
3. Isn't interesting that certain Americans always need to focus every possible news itme on themselves? Sometimes, America just isn't involved.
posted by Snyder at 5:55 PM on February 5, 2006
This is not to say of course that there's nothing wrong with "Islamo-fascism." I'm as against that as I am against the more domestic varieties; it's just that the home-grown kind threatens us Americans more. I hate to say it, but for us what are a few Scandinavian embassies compared to the ongoing trashing of our rights and freedoms by a fascistoid government here at home?
The business of Americans is America. Focus, people, focus.
1. While this board is American dominated, it's not populated soley by Americans.
2. I actualy give a shit about what happens abroad, even if it dosen't directly impact me.
3. Isn't interesting that certain Americans always need to focus every possible news itme on themselves? Sometimes, America just isn't involved.
posted by Snyder at 5:55 PM on February 5, 2006
If representations of Jesus Christ had been used in a manner considered blasphemous to Christians, America would be up in arms about teaching the infidels a lesson.
I don't know where you're getting this. I've seen dozens of cartoons depicting Jesus under all sorts of bad light. One example that comes to mind is the infamous California-based rotten.com Jesus with Boy drawing [SFW], culled from a Catholic prayerbook because it appears to suggest Jesus is being fellated.
posted by ori at 5:56 PM on February 5, 2006
I don't know where you're getting this. I've seen dozens of cartoons depicting Jesus under all sorts of bad light. One example that comes to mind is the infamous California-based rotten.com Jesus with Boy drawing [SFW], culled from a Catholic prayerbook because it appears to suggest Jesus is being fellated.
posted by ori at 5:56 PM on February 5, 2006
That's real oppression.
But these are religious people we're talking about; the whole real/not real angle tends to get a bit lost on them, almost by definition.
posted by boaz at 5:56 PM on February 5, 2006
But these are religious people we're talking about; the whole real/not real angle tends to get a bit lost on them, almost by definition.
posted by boaz at 5:56 PM on February 5, 2006
It is an interesting statement on the situation that an inflammatory editoral has drawn more comments than an article about an interview with a real expert on the Middle East, Robert Baer.
posted by sien at 5:57 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by sien at 5:57 PM on February 5, 2006
Progressive Boston-area residents know that you have to take Jacoby's rants with a little salt. Or a lot. Or instead of salt, I recommend alcohol.
posted by theredpen at 6:06 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by theredpen at 6:06 PM on February 5, 2006
edgeways: If one is going to be disrespectful towards a major religion that is currently prone to violent outbreaks in its' name I would think you should actually make a point.
I think the point they were trying to make was that this major religion is currently prone to violent outbreaks. It's a valid point, and they made it in such a way as to make it impossible to refute.
The fact is, in a country with a right to free speech, they had an absolute right to make disrespectful remarks toward Islam. Certainly, Muslims make plenty of them toward other religions. They are not responsible for any of the reaction that they have caused; if you provoke someone into murder, you make have been asking for it, but it doesn't stop it from being murder, for which the murderer is entirely responsible.
posted by Mitrovarr at 6:08 PM on February 5, 2006
I think the point they were trying to make was that this major religion is currently prone to violent outbreaks. It's a valid point, and they made it in such a way as to make it impossible to refute.
The fact is, in a country with a right to free speech, they had an absolute right to make disrespectful remarks toward Islam. Certainly, Muslims make plenty of them toward other religions. They are not responsible for any of the reaction that they have caused; if you provoke someone into murder, you make have been asking for it, but it doesn't stop it from being murder, for which the murderer is entirely responsible.
posted by Mitrovarr at 6:08 PM on February 5, 2006
edgeways:
People defend it as freedom of speech, but I'm not so sure it should hide behind that veil.
Of course it should. Unless you live in an Islamic theocracy, of course.
It didn't say anything insightful or thought provoking, it was seemingly purposefully written to make a lot of people angry.
Freedom of expression says nothing about how insightful the expression must be. And freedom of expression does not end where someone else becomes offended. That is totally contrary to the idea of freedom of speech.
On those terms there would be very little political humor or satire.
An artist or comedian could display a completely offensive and completely uninsightful (and maybe even unfunny) portrayal of Muhammad. He/she has EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO under our ideals of free speech. It doesn't matter that you don't like it. These are our rights.
Freedom of speech IS EXACTLY the freedom to offend other people's idiotic beliefs (or however you see them). While others can certainly get angry about what you say, you have every right to say it. It does not give them the right to go killing people and burning stuff. It really shows how primitive and uncivilized people can be.
posted by aerify at 6:11 PM on February 5, 2006
People defend it as freedom of speech, but I'm not so sure it should hide behind that veil.
Of course it should. Unless you live in an Islamic theocracy, of course.
It didn't say anything insightful or thought provoking, it was seemingly purposefully written to make a lot of people angry.
Freedom of expression says nothing about how insightful the expression must be. And freedom of expression does not end where someone else becomes offended. That is totally contrary to the idea of freedom of speech.
On those terms there would be very little political humor or satire.
An artist or comedian could display a completely offensive and completely uninsightful (and maybe even unfunny) portrayal of Muhammad. He/she has EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO under our ideals of free speech. It doesn't matter that you don't like it. These are our rights.
Freedom of speech IS EXACTLY the freedom to offend other people's idiotic beliefs (or however you see them). While others can certainly get angry about what you say, you have every right to say it. It does not give them the right to go killing people and burning stuff. It really shows how primitive and uncivilized people can be.
posted by aerify at 6:11 PM on February 5, 2006
The media's new-found "bravery" is bit one-sided. If representations of Jesus Christ had been used in a manner considered blasphemous to Christians, America would be up in arms about teaching the infidels a lesson.
I don't know how it would go over if done by people in other countries, but doesn't anyone else remember Piss Christ? The United States government funded that one, and while (the original) Jesse Helms made a nuisance of himself, no riots came out of it and no buildings were burned.
posted by dilettante at 6:12 PM on February 5, 2006
I don't know how it would go over if done by people in other countries, but doesn't anyone else remember Piss Christ? The United States government funded that one, and while (the original) Jesse Helms made a nuisance of himself, no riots came out of it and no buildings were burned.
posted by dilettante at 6:12 PM on February 5, 2006
I wonder which is more "disrespectful" - a bunch of badly drawn cartoons of some bearded guy, or fundamentalist Muslims oppressing, raping, and killing women, executing gays, and blowing up "infidels" with suicide bombs.
posted by aerify at 6:13 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by aerify at 6:13 PM on February 5, 2006
I don't know. After reading Rushdie and Said, I still don't know.
Oh, I have armchair ideas. No Paine style intellectual movement, lack of quality education that would engender humanist ideas.
Religion is great for those in power - it enables leaders to control the masses without too much effort. Look at those fuckers the Saudis. They keep their country locked down with Islamic law, while raking in billions.
It seems to me that Islamic law was also beneficial for the West, for a time. Keep the leaders in power, keep the people down, and enjoy the fossil fuel like a drug drip from Allah.
Ah, but religion has slippery reigns, and radical mullahs want in on the action. Whip the populace into a frenzy, its just another two minute hate. Dunk the Salem witches, burn the astronomers, kneel to another effigy.
Women of the world, please: unite and take over. Save us from ourselves.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 6:14 PM on February 5, 2006
Oh, I have armchair ideas. No Paine style intellectual movement, lack of quality education that would engender humanist ideas.
Religion is great for those in power - it enables leaders to control the masses without too much effort. Look at those fuckers the Saudis. They keep their country locked down with Islamic law, while raking in billions.
It seems to me that Islamic law was also beneficial for the West, for a time. Keep the leaders in power, keep the people down, and enjoy the fossil fuel like a drug drip from Allah.
Ah, but religion has slippery reigns, and radical mullahs want in on the action. Whip the populace into a frenzy, its just another two minute hate. Dunk the Salem witches, burn the astronomers, kneel to another effigy.
Women of the world, please: unite and take over. Save us from ourselves.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 6:14 PM on February 5, 2006
Any attempt to equate the current behavior of Muslims with extremes in other religions is misguided cultural relativism. This situation is unique, and it highlights the extent to which Islam has been hijacked. In most of the Muslim world, the non-radicals are the minority. The lunatics are running the asylum.
posted by wayside at 6:16 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by wayside at 6:16 PM on February 5, 2006
We accept all sorts of limitations on free speech, speech isn't truly "free" anywhere. The problem is finding where to draw the line.
This falls FAR beyond whatever line that is drawing. Sure, libel/slander is illegal, but art / religious criticism is certainly protected. It doesn't matter that you find it uninsightful, unfunny, or unworthy. It's not for you or the censors to make that call.
Women of the world, please: unite and take over. Save us from ourselves.
I think the past hundred years has shown us that while it's great that women are getting more power, they are just as stupid as men.
posted by aerify at 6:16 PM on February 5, 2006
This falls FAR beyond whatever line that is drawing. Sure, libel/slander is illegal, but art / religious criticism is certainly protected. It doesn't matter that you find it uninsightful, unfunny, or unworthy. It's not for you or the censors to make that call.
Women of the world, please: unite and take over. Save us from ourselves.
I think the past hundred years has shown us that while it's great that women are getting more power, they are just as stupid as men.
posted by aerify at 6:16 PM on February 5, 2006
I think the simple fact that a bunch of people in these countries would be able, in the open and in clear daylight, to burn down embassies says something important about both the people and their societies.
posted by shoos at 6:17 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by shoos at 6:17 PM on February 5, 2006
Why is radical Islam so incredibly common around the world, as compared to say more moderate versions?
My guess? Lack of jobs. Lack of a middle class. People who have security of home, income, health, food, etc tend not to blow shit up so much. It's the people who have nothing, who have nothing to lose, that you've gotta watch out for. They are much more easily driven to extremes of behavior.
Isn't Saudi Arabia one of those places with basically a whole generation of young men with no jobs and nothing to do? I guess you can choose to take your oil wealth and create a functioning economy with many sources of richness, or you can go for a veneer of civilization and a bunch of palaces for yourself, or something else. Having America by the nuts tends to be handy for keeping yourself in power.
posted by beth at 6:19 PM on February 5, 2006
My guess? Lack of jobs. Lack of a middle class. People who have security of home, income, health, food, etc tend not to blow shit up so much. It's the people who have nothing, who have nothing to lose, that you've gotta watch out for. They are much more easily driven to extremes of behavior.
Isn't Saudi Arabia one of those places with basically a whole generation of young men with no jobs and nothing to do? I guess you can choose to take your oil wealth and create a functioning economy with many sources of richness, or you can go for a veneer of civilization and a bunch of palaces for yourself, or something else. Having America by the nuts tends to be handy for keeping yourself in power.
posted by beth at 6:19 PM on February 5, 2006
You need look no further than the anti-abortion rhetoric, the prayer-in-school debate, and the Intelligent Design debate to see the way in which the lunatics are running the asylum here, too.
Yes, rhetoric, debate... If that is what you think is going on in the middle east, you haven't been watching the news.
posted by wayside at 6:24 PM on February 5, 2006
Yes, rhetoric, debate... If that is what you think is going on in the middle east, you haven't been watching the news.
posted by wayside at 6:24 PM on February 5, 2006
Thanks sien."And American dollars. It's sort of like if you took a Ku Klux Klan colony and placed it in Detroit and you paid for it. Look at the 9/11 commission. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind, said it's all about Israel. We have to pay attention..." and "...Sure it's that simple. They have no idea what an Arab is. There's this guy that just resigned from the CIA, he ran Iraqi operations, and he said out of the 40 people he had working for him leading up to the war, only two of them had ever met an Arab overseas."
posted by exlotuseater at 6:25 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by exlotuseater at 6:25 PM on February 5, 2006
I don't mind so much the sentiment that "We are all Danes now," (or would mind it less if the memory of that phrase's origin hadn't turned to ashes in my mouth), but it's true that the linked piece from the Globe doesn't add much of anything to the discussion.
By contrast, Josh Marshall's take at Talking Points Memo is much more worthwhile, if you're looking for a similarly brief but much more thoughtful articulation of what I'm guessing a lot of people are more or less thinking. He also links to Ari Shavat writing in the New Yorker on the meaning/consequences of the Hamas electoral victory; connected obliquely but also worth your time.
posted by BT at 6:29 PM on February 5, 2006
By contrast, Josh Marshall's take at Talking Points Memo is much more worthwhile, if you're looking for a similarly brief but much more thoughtful articulation of what I'm guessing a lot of people are more or less thinking. He also links to Ari Shavat writing in the New Yorker on the meaning/consequences of the Hamas electoral victory; connected obliquely but also worth your time.
posted by BT at 6:29 PM on February 5, 2006
the meaning/consequences of the Hamas electoral victory; connected obliquely but also worth your time.
I think the two are very much connected. Thanks for the article.
posted by wayside at 6:36 PM on February 5, 2006
I think the two are very much connected. Thanks for the article.
posted by wayside at 6:36 PM on February 5, 2006
Perhaps you've forgotten about Timothy McVeigh and Paul Hill, not to mention Randall Terry and Joseph Schiedler. If you think these folks were/are interested in debate, you haven't been watching the news, either.
A handfull of nutjobs do not equal an international mob. Sorry, but I think you're reaching.
posted by wayside at 6:41 PM on February 5, 2006
A handfull of nutjobs do not equal an international mob. Sorry, but I think you're reaching.
posted by wayside at 6:41 PM on February 5, 2006
Women of the world, please: unite and take over. Save us from ourselves.
posted by IndigoJones at 6:42 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by IndigoJones at 6:42 PM on February 5, 2006
Mothers of the Jihad... women brainwashed to believe they are inferior to men, believing what their husbands tell them, offering up their sons. There are no female idalogues in the fundamentalist world.
posted by wayside at 6:45 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by wayside at 6:45 PM on February 5, 2006
nightchrome: "Why is radical Islam so incredibly common around the world, as compared to say more moderate versions? ... there are a whole lot more than just 'a few' bad apples, and there's probably a reason for that."
The religion is more pervasive and influential in all areas of life in muslim-dominated countries than Christianity is in mostly-Christian countries; and in a culture where not being a true muslim is considered the worst evil, there is a "ratchet" effect in favor of those promoting more-severe versions. Mentioning these factors in regard to adults would merely beg questions of causation - but considering this as the environment in which children grow up goes a long way toward expaining the radicalism.
If parents everywhere were prevented from indoctrinating children with supernaturalist dogmas, all religious conflicts would be gone in a few generations, and the theistic religions themselves in a few more.
Obviously that's only a mental exercise, but so far as a society moves away from inculcation of particular religions in children it progresses intellectually ,socially, economically etc.. It has worked for W. Europe, Canada, and "blue state" USA. I would support policies to move modern societies in this direction. It would serve as a self-defense mechanism as more muslims immigrate and try to spread their faith.
posted by jam_pony at 6:49 PM on February 5, 2006
The religion is more pervasive and influential in all areas of life in muslim-dominated countries than Christianity is in mostly-Christian countries; and in a culture where not being a true muslim is considered the worst evil, there is a "ratchet" effect in favor of those promoting more-severe versions. Mentioning these factors in regard to adults would merely beg questions of causation - but considering this as the environment in which children grow up goes a long way toward expaining the radicalism.
If parents everywhere were prevented from indoctrinating children with supernaturalist dogmas, all religious conflicts would be gone in a few generations, and the theistic religions themselves in a few more.
Obviously that's only a mental exercise, but so far as a society moves away from inculcation of particular religions in children it progresses intellectually ,socially, economically etc.. It has worked for W. Europe, Canada, and "blue state" USA. I would support policies to move modern societies in this direction. It would serve as a self-defense mechanism as more muslims immigrate and try to spread their faith.
posted by jam_pony at 6:49 PM on February 5, 2006
And we know just how tolerant people are when mainstream US newspapers public derogatory cartoons of black people and jewish people. Oh wait they don't (anymore)... Funny that.
posted by dopeypanda at 6:49 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by dopeypanda at 6:49 PM on February 5, 2006
I guess what I was trying to get at was I felt the publication of that cartoon was irresponsible and intentionally inflammatory especially given the riots that occurred not far away recently. If you stand in front of someone and verbally abuse them can you be surprised if they punch you in the face? Can you imagine the outcry if in the midst of the rampant sex abuse scandal (in regards to the Catholic church) that where in the news not long ago if someone had published a cartoon in Russia (or wherever) implying that Jesus sexually molested children that there would have been calm reflective comments about it?
Just because someone writes something, or draws something does not mean it should automatically get published. Unless I am completely mistaken, freedom of expression does not automatically translate into freedom to freely distribute that expression wherever you want. There are countless editorial cartoons that don't get published daily, do they fall under the banner of censorship?
ultimately I can not say that the publishers should be banned from doing what they did, but it was ill timed, irresponsible, idiotic...
Also, I am not trying to minimize the extreme overreaction that has occurred. I am pretty non-religious and think the violence that is happening is depressing and appalling.
posted by edgeways at 6:57 PM on February 5, 2006
Just because someone writes something, or draws something does not mean it should automatically get published. Unless I am completely mistaken, freedom of expression does not automatically translate into freedom to freely distribute that expression wherever you want. There are countless editorial cartoons that don't get published daily, do they fall under the banner of censorship?
ultimately I can not say that the publishers should be banned from doing what they did, but it was ill timed, irresponsible, idiotic...
Also, I am not trying to minimize the extreme overreaction that has occurred. I am pretty non-religious and think the violence that is happening is depressing and appalling.
posted by edgeways at 6:57 PM on February 5, 2006
These cartoons were published September 30. These riots are occurring now. Why? Simultaneous riots across continents months later? Extremists mullahs appear to be provoking this. Why? There is more going on here than free speech issues.
I wonder which political leaders might best benefit by it. Anyone have any ideas?
As always, follow the money and/or power. The answer is almost always at the end of the trail.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:03 PM on February 5, 2006
I wonder which political leaders might best benefit by it. Anyone have any ideas?
As always, follow the money and/or power. The answer is almost always at the end of the trail.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:03 PM on February 5, 2006
"Women of the world, please: unite and take over. Save us from ourselves."
Nah, then we'd all be Claire Danes.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:04 PM on February 5, 2006
Nah, then we'd all be Claire Danes.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:04 PM on February 5, 2006
And how, exactly, are those "international mobs" different from the mobs at abortion clinics, Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument, or Terri Schiavo's hospice? The only reason they didn't escalate into riots was the presence of the police.
The similarities are obvious. The difference is proportionality. The things you point out are awful and hateful and a detriment to civilization. Only in the most extreme cases, primarily with abortion, do they become violent and destructive. And when they do, the practitioners of such violence are rightfully treated as criminals. What is going on in the middle east right now would be described as wanton lawlessness and mob rule in the western world. I don't deny we currently run the risk of going in the same direction, but equating the current status of western culture with the extremes taking over the Muslim world is like comparing anti-war protesters to al-quaeda. The cultural viewpoints expressed in the current state of bedlam have much more in common with the U.S. in the mid 18th century. When we used to burn witches. We have a long way to go before we sink back to that level of barbarism.
posted by wayside at 7:06 PM on February 5, 2006
The similarities are obvious. The difference is proportionality. The things you point out are awful and hateful and a detriment to civilization. Only in the most extreme cases, primarily with abortion, do they become violent and destructive. And when they do, the practitioners of such violence are rightfully treated as criminals. What is going on in the middle east right now would be described as wanton lawlessness and mob rule in the western world. I don't deny we currently run the risk of going in the same direction, but equating the current status of western culture with the extremes taking over the Muslim world is like comparing anti-war protesters to al-quaeda. The cultural viewpoints expressed in the current state of bedlam have much more in common with the U.S. in the mid 18th century. When we used to burn witches. We have a long way to go before we sink back to that level of barbarism.
posted by wayside at 7:06 PM on February 5, 2006
exlotuseater: It's sort of like if you took a Ku Klux Klan colony and placed it in Detroit and you paid for it. Look at the 9/11 commission. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind, said it's all about Israel.
Leaving aside the Klu Klux Klan=Jews parallel, how the heck is this controversy about the Danish cartoons "all about Israel"? Depending on your view, it might be about the rise of Islamism, or Western views of free speech vs. the Muslim world, or the insensitivity of Europe to its Muslim populations, or whatever, but Israel?
Anyhow, some insightful stuff from the New York Times:
But this did not take place in a political vacuum. Hostile feelings have been growing between Denmark's immigrants and a government supported by the right-wing Danish People's Party, which has pushed anti-immigrant policies. And stereotyping in cartoons has a notorious history in Europe, where anti-Semitic caricatures fed the Holocaust, just as they feed anti-Israeli propaganda in the Middle East today.
In the current climate, some experts on mass communications suggest, the exercise was no more benign than commissioning caricatures of African-Americans would have been during the 1960's civil rights struggle. "You have to ask what was the intent of these cartoons, bearing in mind the recent history of tension in Denmark with the Muslim community," said David Welch, head of the Center for the Study of Propaganda and War at the University of Kent in Britain. Nicholas Lemann, dean of the Columbia Journalism School, put it this way: "He knew what he was doing."
The reaction, in any event, was clearly deliberate. A group of Denmark's fundamentalist Muslim clerics lobbied the embassies of 11 mostly Muslim countries to demand a meeting with Denmark's prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. When he refused, the clerics took their show on the road, shopping the offending images around the Middle East.
The clerics inflamed the response by including in their presentation far more offensive cartoons that never appeared in any newspaper, some depicting Muhammad as a pedophile, a pig or engaged in bestiality.
posted by blahblahblah at 7:07 PM on February 5, 2006
Leaving aside the Klu Klux Klan=Jews parallel, how the heck is this controversy about the Danish cartoons "all about Israel"? Depending on your view, it might be about the rise of Islamism, or Western views of free speech vs. the Muslim world, or the insensitivity of Europe to its Muslim populations, or whatever, but Israel?
Anyhow, some insightful stuff from the New York Times:
But this did not take place in a political vacuum. Hostile feelings have been growing between Denmark's immigrants and a government supported by the right-wing Danish People's Party, which has pushed anti-immigrant policies. And stereotyping in cartoons has a notorious history in Europe, where anti-Semitic caricatures fed the Holocaust, just as they feed anti-Israeli propaganda in the Middle East today.
In the current climate, some experts on mass communications suggest, the exercise was no more benign than commissioning caricatures of African-Americans would have been during the 1960's civil rights struggle. "You have to ask what was the intent of these cartoons, bearing in mind the recent history of tension in Denmark with the Muslim community," said David Welch, head of the Center for the Study of Propaganda and War at the University of Kent in Britain. Nicholas Lemann, dean of the Columbia Journalism School, put it this way: "He knew what he was doing."
The reaction, in any event, was clearly deliberate. A group of Denmark's fundamentalist Muslim clerics lobbied the embassies of 11 mostly Muslim countries to demand a meeting with Denmark's prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. When he refused, the clerics took their show on the road, shopping the offending images around the Middle East.
The clerics inflamed the response by including in their presentation far more offensive cartoons that never appeared in any newspaper, some depicting Muhammad as a pedophile, a pig or engaged in bestiality.
posted by blahblahblah at 7:07 PM on February 5, 2006
And we know just how tolerant people are when mainstream US newspapers public derogatory cartoons of black people and jewish people. Oh wait they don't (anymore)... Funny that.
Please show me where any such thing resulted in mass violence in the past 100 years.
posted by wayside at 7:09 PM on February 5, 2006
Please show me where any such thing resulted in mass violence in the past 100 years.
posted by wayside at 7:09 PM on February 5, 2006
dopeypanda: And we know just how tolerant people are when mainstream US newspapers public derogatory cartoons of black people and jewish people.
Yup.
If you want to fight for freedom of speech, why pick such a pointless battle?
posted by StickyCarpet at 7:10 PM on February 5, 2006
If you want to fight for freedom of speech, why pick such a pointless battle?
Freedom of speech doesn't pick its battles, it fights them when its practitioners of conscience are threatened.
posted by wayside at 7:13 PM on February 5, 2006
Freedom of speech doesn't pick its battles, it fights them when its practitioners of conscience are threatened.
posted by wayside at 7:13 PM on February 5, 2006
If parents everywhere were prevented from indoctrinating children with supernaturalist dogmas...
I couldn't agree more, but first we'd have to argue down the "we must respect all religions/beliefs/cultures" mentality that has basically left western society impotent in the face of extremist viewpoints both without and within.
posted by slatternus at 7:14 PM on February 5, 2006
I couldn't agree more, but first we'd have to argue down the "we must respect all religions/beliefs/cultures" mentality that has basically left western society impotent in the face of extremist viewpoints both without and within.
posted by slatternus at 7:14 PM on February 5, 2006
Please show me where any such thing resulted in mass violence in the past 100 years.
wayside, just don your union jack and take a stroll through the South Bronx.
posted by StickyCarpet at 7:15 PM on February 5, 2006
wayside, just don your union jack and take a stroll through the South Bronx.
posted by StickyCarpet at 7:15 PM on February 5, 2006
I think we have to compare apples with apples. This has nothing whatsoever to do with a comparison between "Christian" parts of the world and Islamic parts of the world. In fact the last time major sections of the world were both formally and practically Christian - things were far worse for people who stepped out of line that they are now in the Islamic world.
What delivered "The West" from that barbarism was the ascent of secularism in the Enlightenment. The only reason religion - specifically Christianity - is not a problem in Europe or North America is that it has been severely reined in and it is dominated by the state. So to suggest this has ANYthing to do with supposed "Christian" values is laughable - this has to do with SECULAR values.
Fact is though that secular values are a direct threat to Islam, just as they were to Christianity. And just as the Christians fought back in various ways over the course of a couple hundred years, so will the Muslims - at least a subset of them will.
So rather than engage in this false triumphalistic orgy by repeating as a mantra how barbaric "those people" are, I think it's much more productive to actually figure out how to accelerate them through this period of confusion and clashing values. That means not provoking people just for kicks, not gloating, not rubbing anyone's nose in the triumph of the Western system. Just a practical matter.
posted by mikel at 7:17 PM on February 5, 2006
What delivered "The West" from that barbarism was the ascent of secularism in the Enlightenment. The only reason religion - specifically Christianity - is not a problem in Europe or North America is that it has been severely reined in and it is dominated by the state. So to suggest this has ANYthing to do with supposed "Christian" values is laughable - this has to do with SECULAR values.
Fact is though that secular values are a direct threat to Islam, just as they were to Christianity. And just as the Christians fought back in various ways over the course of a couple hundred years, so will the Muslims - at least a subset of them will.
So rather than engage in this false triumphalistic orgy by repeating as a mantra how barbaric "those people" are, I think it's much more productive to actually figure out how to accelerate them through this period of confusion and clashing values. That means not provoking people just for kicks, not gloating, not rubbing anyone's nose in the triumph of the Western system. Just a practical matter.
posted by mikel at 7:17 PM on February 5, 2006
I echo those who say "Ain't it interesting that just when the political ties between Livedoor and cabinet members is coming to light, suddenly there's a dramatic world-wide resurgence of the 'Islamo-fascist' threat?"
This is not to say of course that there's nothing wrong with "Islamo-fascism." I'm as against that as I am against the more domestic varieties; it's just that deep government corruption threatens us folks living in Japan more. I hate to say it, but for us what are a few Scandinavian embassies compared to the ongoing political machinations and scandals here at home?
The business of Japan is Japan. Focus, people, focus.
posted by Bugbread at 7:18 PM on February 5, 2006
This is not to say of course that there's nothing wrong with "Islamo-fascism." I'm as against that as I am against the more domestic varieties; it's just that deep government corruption threatens us folks living in Japan more. I hate to say it, but for us what are a few Scandinavian embassies compared to the ongoing political machinations and scandals here at home?
The business of Japan is Japan. Focus, people, focus.
posted by Bugbread at 7:18 PM on February 5, 2006
Why is radical Islam so incredibly common around the world, as compared to say more moderate versions?
1. many muslims are currently under military occupation by what they rightly or wrongly see as "The West"
2. islam has been subject to pogroms by numerous attempted Christian crusades since it first appeared
3. a whole lot of muslims around the world live in poverty, and the more poor you are, the more likely it is that if you're religious you're crazy religious
4. people keep publishing stupid, stupid shit like those cartoons
5. etc.
posted by poweredbybeard at 7:19 PM on February 5, 2006
1. many muslims are currently under military occupation by what they rightly or wrongly see as "The West"
2. islam has been subject to pogroms by numerous attempted Christian crusades since it first appeared
3. a whole lot of muslims around the world live in poverty, and the more poor you are, the more likely it is that if you're religious you're crazy religious
4. people keep publishing stupid, stupid shit like those cartoons
5. etc.
posted by poweredbybeard at 7:19 PM on February 5, 2006
...but [unless you listen to the crazier right-wing extremists] Christians aren't a poor underclass in the US. There's a lot of xenophobia with regards to the presence of Muslims in Europe, and they're disproportionately poor. Remember all of those articles about how miserable French banlieus are? I suspect it's generally easier to stir up mob violence in a poor and frustrated group of people who feel that they're subject to racism. On the other hand, Christians in the US [or Europe] are the majority of the population, and they're not overwhelmingly poor or easily distinguished due to skin color. I'd imagine that beyond the most fervent of fanatics, it's hard to mobilize someone living a comfortable middle class life to, say, commit arson and burn down a museum that's got a piece of art like "Piss Christ" in it. Instead of focusing on Christians, imagine the response of an American minority [say, blacks or Hispanics] to cartoons specifically mocking them and their culture - say, the Globe publishing racist cartoons. I think that's a somewhat better comparison [although it's certainly not totally analogous.]
So is the response to the cartoons an overreaction? To a certain extent, but it's not a reaction _just_ to the publication of the cartoons. The self-righteous publication of the cartoons in a bunch of European papers in the name of 'free speech' is a little disingenuous, since it rather ignores the fact that one of the probably intents of those cartoons was to reinforce the xenophobia of Europeans and to provoke Muslims, and that's it's not a simple case of some noble paper getting persecuted for speaking the truth. Reprinting the cartoons [instead of just stating that while the cartoons are reprehensible, the Danish paper had a right to publish them] has the effect of supporting the message of the cartoons as well as their right to be published. Responses that include arson or murder should, of course, be punished, but the vast majority of Muslisms [whether outraged at the very publication of the cartoons or simply disappointed that people are using their free speech to provoke rather than enlighten] aren't doing that. Their outrage, as expressed in words or protests or boycotts or any sort of nonviolent activities, seems not unreasonable.
posted by ubersturm at 7:21 PM on February 5, 2006
So is the response to the cartoons an overreaction? To a certain extent, but it's not a reaction _just_ to the publication of the cartoons. The self-righteous publication of the cartoons in a bunch of European papers in the name of 'free speech' is a little disingenuous, since it rather ignores the fact that one of the probably intents of those cartoons was to reinforce the xenophobia of Europeans and to provoke Muslims, and that's it's not a simple case of some noble paper getting persecuted for speaking the truth. Reprinting the cartoons [instead of just stating that while the cartoons are reprehensible, the Danish paper had a right to publish them] has the effect of supporting the message of the cartoons as well as their right to be published. Responses that include arson or murder should, of course, be punished, but the vast majority of Muslisms [whether outraged at the very publication of the cartoons or simply disappointed that people are using their free speech to provoke rather than enlighten] aren't doing that. Their outrage, as expressed in words or protests or boycotts or any sort of nonviolent activities, seems not unreasonable.
posted by ubersturm at 7:21 PM on February 5, 2006
I'm not all that surprised by the response (religious crackpots of any creed are prone to commit acts flaunting their crackpottery). I'm with Blue Wire and five fresh fish on this one; why has there been a lag of over 4 months between the publication of the cartoons and the response? If it was extremist mullahs, why wait this long? And if they aren't ultimately responsible for it, then who, and why?
posted by Lee Marvin at 7:22 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by Lee Marvin at 7:22 PM on February 5, 2006
oh and 6. it's a younger religion than christianity, so it hasn't worked through it's awkward teenage years yet
posted by poweredbybeard at 7:22 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by poweredbybeard at 7:22 PM on February 5, 2006
The KKK.... nice point. If you're interested in hate dogma I can point you toward a lot of websites that spout such garbage. When the KKK marches in a U.S. town, the biggest problem local law enforcement has is protecting the people they'd like to beat to a pulp themselves. Are you suggesting that KKK style hate is predominant in western culture? Has this been your experience?
and regarding:
wayside, just don your union jack and take a stroll through the South Bronx.
I have been to the south Bronx a number of times, though I don't own a union jack and wouldn't have any reason to wear one. Whats your point?
posted by wayside at 7:24 PM on February 5, 2006
and regarding:
wayside, just don your union jack and take a stroll through the South Bronx.
I have been to the south Bronx a number of times, though I don't own a union jack and wouldn't have any reason to wear one. Whats your point?
posted by wayside at 7:24 PM on February 5, 2006
Ever listen to Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh? They equate anti-war protestors and liberals with al-qaeda every day.
I listen to all of them for laughs. And I was equating their viewpoint with yours.
posted by wayside at 7:27 PM on February 5, 2006
I listen to all of them for laughs. And I was equating their viewpoint with yours.
posted by wayside at 7:27 PM on February 5, 2006
Here is an interview with Salman Rushdie from a while back where he discusses the fatwa. He seems to be of the opinion that most of his problems came from a radical minority, mentioning that over in Pakistan people would offer his mother sympathy and say how "dreadful" the fatwa thing is. He also mentioned how more pornographic jokes and stories about Mohammed are made in Iran than in any other country.
posted by bobo123 at 7:29 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by bobo123 at 7:29 PM on February 5, 2006
im not entirely sure that the facist islamic outcry over something this stupid isn't magnified if not outright largely fabricated.
but lets say its all true and a large number of them (dramatic music) are this silly and backward. ....They're still just holding signs and talking angry. Maybe they kill someone. By all means, lets deal with it.... but AFTER we deal with the other much more powerful and destructive gob of fascist ass holes.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 7:29 PM on February 5, 2006
but lets say its all true and a large number of them (dramatic music) are this silly and backward. ....They're still just holding signs and talking angry. Maybe they kill someone. By all means, lets deal with it.... but AFTER we deal with the other much more powerful and destructive gob of fascist ass holes.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 7:29 PM on February 5, 2006
Reality slowly dawns.
Good morning world. Welcome to THE TRUTH.
posted by HTuttle at 7:33 PM on February 5, 2006
Good morning world. Welcome to THE TRUTH.
posted by HTuttle at 7:33 PM on February 5, 2006
Though it IS fun to watch all the equivalencers tie themsleves into a knot trying to rationalize this one away.
posted by HTuttle at 7:35 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by HTuttle at 7:35 PM on February 5, 2006
And when the KKK marches there are counter demonstrators right there, often violent ones. Do you feel the same way about them as you do about the Muslim protesters against these racist cartoons? Just curious.
posted by dopeypanda at 7:39 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by dopeypanda at 7:39 PM on February 5, 2006
I don't deny we currently run the risk of going in the same direction, but equating the current status of western culture with the extremes taking over the Muslim world is like comparing anti-war protesters to al-quaeda.
Ever listen to Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh? They equate anti-war protestors and liberals with al-qaeda every day.
Er, yes, I think that's exactly the point he was trying to make. Comparing the current status of western culture with the extremes in the Muslim world is, in his opinion, crazy. Comparing anti-war protesters to al-quaeda is, in his opinion, a crazy thing. You have pointed out that there are people in the US who also make these comparisons, people whom you, presumably, think are crazy. How does that defend your position?
A: "Saying George Bush is a hyperintelligent alien is like saying that the earth is flat."
B: "Ever read www.theflatearthsociety.org? They say the earth is flat every day."
How does aligning your behaviour with the behaviour of crazies support your position?
Note: I don't really have an opinion on the subject, but the logic involved in your response has me stumped.
posted by Bugbread at 7:42 PM on February 5, 2006
Ever listen to Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh? They equate anti-war protestors and liberals with al-qaeda every day.
Er, yes, I think that's exactly the point he was trying to make. Comparing the current status of western culture with the extremes in the Muslim world is, in his opinion, crazy. Comparing anti-war protesters to al-quaeda is, in his opinion, a crazy thing. You have pointed out that there are people in the US who also make these comparisons, people whom you, presumably, think are crazy. How does that defend your position?
A: "Saying George Bush is a hyperintelligent alien is like saying that the earth is flat."
B: "Ever read www.theflatearthsociety.org? They say the earth is flat every day."
How does aligning your behaviour with the behaviour of crazies support your position?
Note: I don't really have an opinion on the subject, but the logic involved in your response has me stumped.
posted by Bugbread at 7:42 PM on February 5, 2006
You know what's absolutely fucking rich? That the same mefites who show up in droves to bash the crazy religious people (well, Christians) a few times a week—you know, how ignorant and irrational it is to believe these things—show up in these sorts of threads to defend Moslems.
Being a good liberal myself, I will also usually take a contrary position to someone who seems to be in the verge (or is) of being bigoted. But look at this rationally: why in the world is there any reason whatsoever that a) all major religions are aproximately equal in terms of inciting violence; and b) that at all times through their history they pretty much equal in terms of inciting violence. It's just a stupid idea.
The fact of the matter is that Islam is in a more violent, radical and xenophobic phase. Christianity is not. Christianity has been in the past, and the Crusades are just one example. But a very large portion, probably half, of the world's Christian population lives in Western secular societies that all have long-standing cultures of tolerance. The Islamic world has not been that tolerant since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of the dominance of the Muslim world by Arabs has included the importation into the Muslim ethos a cultural tradition of intolerance.
Saying that this is the case isn't bigotry, it's simple fact. If you want to claim that either Christianity or Islam is inherently peaceful or violent compared to the other, then that's a whole different thing, and at the least is dubious. Religion interacts with other cultural influences and it is not the case that Islam is inherently radical or violent, it's that is has been intolerant for a century or so, and is moving towards a general radicalism and violence. Why that is the case is a complex matter and a different discussion.
Josh Marshall linked to a very interesting article in the New Yorker's "The Talk of the Town". It's fair and truthful, I think, even though the subject of the piece is what an Israeli intelligence officer has been saying for years and so the source is obviously biased. But I think that nevertheless, he's right. Here's the short piece:
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:45 PM on February 5, 2006
Being a good liberal myself, I will also usually take a contrary position to someone who seems to be in the verge (or is) of being bigoted. But look at this rationally: why in the world is there any reason whatsoever that a) all major religions are aproximately equal in terms of inciting violence; and b) that at all times through their history they pretty much equal in terms of inciting violence. It's just a stupid idea.
The fact of the matter is that Islam is in a more violent, radical and xenophobic phase. Christianity is not. Christianity has been in the past, and the Crusades are just one example. But a very large portion, probably half, of the world's Christian population lives in Western secular societies that all have long-standing cultures of tolerance. The Islamic world has not been that tolerant since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of the dominance of the Muslim world by Arabs has included the importation into the Muslim ethos a cultural tradition of intolerance.
Saying that this is the case isn't bigotry, it's simple fact. If you want to claim that either Christianity or Islam is inherently peaceful or violent compared to the other, then that's a whole different thing, and at the least is dubious. Religion interacts with other cultural influences and it is not the case that Islam is inherently radical or violent, it's that is has been intolerant for a century or so, and is moving towards a general radicalism and violence. Why that is the case is a complex matter and a different discussion.
Josh Marshall linked to a very interesting article in the New Yorker's "The Talk of the Town". It's fair and truthful, I think, even though the subject of the piece is what an Israeli intelligence officer has been saying for years and so the source is obviously biased. But I think that nevertheless, he's right. Here's the short piece:
Shalom Harari is a former Israeli Military Intelligence officer who has been following the rise of Hamas—the Islamic Resistance Movement—for almost a quarter century. An awkward, voluble man of nearly sixty, Harari gained a measure of fame in intelligence circles when he began to tell his colleagues in internal reports that Hamas, founded in 1987, and initially a small outgrowth of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, would, with its platform of armed resistance, grassroots politics, and Islamic ideology, come to dominate Palestinian politics. Six years ago, while most of his colleagues were anticipating peace, Harari was rightly predicting a second intifada; that uprising led to the decline of Yasir Arafat’s creation and power base, the Fatah Party.There's no denying that there is and has been a strong wing of moderatism in Islam. It's arguably on the wane.
Last Thursday night, just hours after it was announced that Hamas had crushed Fatah in legislative elections––an event that caused some right-wing Israeli politicians to declare the birth of a terrorist “Hamastan”—Harari welcomed a visitor to his home, in the town of Yavne, near the Mediterranean. While most Israeli and Arab-language news channels were broadcasting scenes of Hamas supporters in the Gaza Strip waving green flags as they celebrated their stunning victory, Harari had tuned in to a seemingly tedious military ceremony on Egyptian state television. “Look at the wives of the generals,” he said. “Many of them are wearing traditional head scarves. This was not so ten years ago. And this tells you where we are heading. When the women of Egypt’s pro-Western military élite are dressed like that, you know that the Hamas victory is not about Palestine. It’s about the entire Middle East.”
Harari, who served as an intelligence officer in the West Bank and then as the adviser on Palestinian affairs to the Israeli Defense Ministry, is still closely connected to his former colleagues, and he said he had heard that, some weeks ago, the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, who was afraid of a Hamas rout at the polls, begged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to exert United States pressure and postpone the scheduled elections. Rice refused, Harari said, and told Abbas to go forward. (A State Department spokesman declined to confirm the details of their conversation.)
And yet Harari would like to believe that the American “mistake”––if that is what it was––was a blessing in disguise. “At least, now we know what we are faced with,” he said. “Now we can make a real diagnosis and understand what is truly the malaise.”
Harari said that he first took note of the Palestinian Islamists in the early nineteen-eighties, shortly after the Iranian revolution, when Islamists won student elections in the prestigious universities of the West Bank. A decade later, Islamists won elections in chambers of commerce in the occupied territories and, more recently, started to win in municipal elections. Now Hamas has taken control of the parliament, he said, and is sure to challenge Abbas for the Presidency.
But look around, Harari said: “In Jordan, too, wherever there are free elections––trade unions, student unions, professional guilds––the Islamists have the upper hand. If the Hashemite kings”––Hussein and Abdullah––“had not played all kinds of tricks, the Islamists would have had a large representation in parliament as well. And when Egypt held its American-inspired parliamentary elections recently, the number of seats won by the Muslim Brotherhood rose fivefold. Throughout the Middle East, the Muslim Brotherhood is the main power with grassroots support. The Islamists are less corrupt. They are the ones with integrity and compassion. They are of the people and they speak for the people. Today in the Arab world, the choice is clear between democratically elected Islamists and Western-leaning dictators.”
Rising heavily from the sofa in his living room, Harari held up a small prayer carpet he acquired in Gaza almost ten years ago. The rug had been woven by handicapped children in a philanthropic workshop run by Yasir Arafat’s brother, Fathi. “Look at it,” Harari said. “It has a map of the entire land—from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. But the land is all green. All Muslim. No place for Jews here, no mention of Israel. Acre, Jaffa, Nablus—no Tel Aviv. Yet this was woven in a Fatah institution. Back in the Oslo era, the Hamas terminology was already taking over Arafat’s movement.
“Now look at these campaign posters,” he went on, gesturing at his collection. “They are all from recent weeks. Notice the difference: while the Hamas ads are calm and tranquil, with no hint of violence, the Fatah ads are full of guns and grenades and jihad rhetoric. While Hamas projects religious dignity, Fatah goes back to its aggressive revolutionary ethos. There was no real talk of peace. The decades of work that Hamas did in mosques and schools and charity organizations transformed Palestinian society from within. What suddenly erupted today has been simmering beneath the surface for a generation. There was not one moderate option that represented the whole Palestinian people. Americans, Europeans, and moderate Israelis like me wanted to believe that Arafat and Abbas were the sole representatives of the Palestinian people, but they were not. Hamas claimed all along that it had the support of forty per cent of the Palestinians, and it was probably right. Among the fundamentalists, the idea that Islam is superior to other religions has become predominant. Long before it took over the Palestinian parliament, Hamas managed to turn what we thought to be a national conflict into a religious war.”
Harari, as a retired brigadier general, admits to being impressed by the resilience of the Hamas leadership in the face of Israeli attacks. The issue, of course, is whether this revolutionary movement, whose charter is devoted to the elimination of Israel, could develop into a ruling party interested in territorial compromise. On that Harari is doubtful. “It would take years before real negotiations could resume,” he said. “An over-all peace agreement is out of the question for a long time. ”
Yet the impact of the Hamas victory, he said, is not local but regional. “As we speak,” he said, “there are growing fears not only in Israel but in Jordan, Egypt, and even Syria. The Hamas victory is a Middle East earthquake. Its shock waves will be felt in every town between Casablanca and Baghdad.”
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:45 PM on February 5, 2006
Snyder, I will not apologize about speaking here to as an American to Americans about an American concern -- which the burning of a few Scandinavian embassies is not. Though it is America that taught Europe about "separation of Church and State" and "freedom of the press", it was not an American cartoon that those loony Muslims are rioting over this time -- and we Americans have more pressing (because more domestic) issues to worry about than the fate of some foreign-owned real estate in countries far away.
By 19th-century precedent, the burning of an embassy would be a cause for war: Demark and Norway would threaten to declare war on those countries where the embassies burned unless adequate compensation were made. Yet on a much simpler and less bloody level, I doubt the Danish and Norwegian governments were stupid enough to leave their embassies uninsured, and the governments of those mostly Muslim nations whose troops would not gun down crowds of fanatical loonies have already made public statements that could be easily construed as apologies for some of their citizens' "excesses". Thus the "crisis" is over, northern Europe is not about to stop being "Western", and there is nothing in this story that Americans should consider over American concerns.
I would gladly see every European embassy in the Muslim world burn if in the meantime George W. Bush could be impeached for his treasonous crimes against Americans' rights and freedoms -- and for his colonialist aggressions against the people of Afghanistan and Iraq (among others). Unlike the Scandinavian embassies, the freedoms of Americans have not yet been insured, nor has the safety of whoever Halliburton might want to rob next.
posted by davy at 7:46 PM on February 5, 2006
By 19th-century precedent, the burning of an embassy would be a cause for war: Demark and Norway would threaten to declare war on those countries where the embassies burned unless adequate compensation were made. Yet on a much simpler and less bloody level, I doubt the Danish and Norwegian governments were stupid enough to leave their embassies uninsured, and the governments of those mostly Muslim nations whose troops would not gun down crowds of fanatical loonies have already made public statements that could be easily construed as apologies for some of their citizens' "excesses". Thus the "crisis" is over, northern Europe is not about to stop being "Western", and there is nothing in this story that Americans should consider over American concerns.
I would gladly see every European embassy in the Muslim world burn if in the meantime George W. Bush could be impeached for his treasonous crimes against Americans' rights and freedoms -- and for his colonialist aggressions against the people of Afghanistan and Iraq (among others). Unlike the Scandinavian embassies, the freedoms of Americans have not yet been insured, nor has the safety of whoever Halliburton might want to rob next.
posted by davy at 7:46 PM on February 5, 2006
I'm with Blue Wire and five fresh fish on this one; why has there been a lag of over 4 months between the publication of the cartoons and the response?
Yeah. This is an op, and it's pretty obvious it started after the publication of the cartoons. What were the letters to the editor like immediately after their publication, I wonder? I came out as firmly on the free-speech side of all this before, and I don't regret that no matter what kind of right-wing lowlifes I might be standing with, but I'm not gonna judge the whole of Islam, either, because this shit is staged like it rode in on swift boats.
posted by furiousthought at 7:46 PM on February 5, 2006
Yeah. This is an op, and it's pretty obvious it started after the publication of the cartoons. What were the letters to the editor like immediately after their publication, I wonder? I came out as firmly on the free-speech side of all this before, and I don't regret that no matter what kind of right-wing lowlifes I might be standing with, but I'm not gonna judge the whole of Islam, either, because this shit is staged like it rode in on swift boats.
posted by furiousthought at 7:46 PM on February 5, 2006
Matt:
The bridge is in New York, it crosses over into Brooklyn. I hear it can be had for a pittance. And Arizona is lovely this time of year. So I hear...
So we can go back and forth with "the Muslim world is doing this" and "but the western world has done that", and nobody is qualified to define what actually IS a moral equivelant. It isn't my job, certainly.
Philip Roth once pointed out (in response to his work being out of line with the Jewish political agenda of the time) that there are better ways to keep it from becoming 1939 again than acting as if it is still 1939, or as if it is always 1939. The current cultural war in the U.S. carries its own issues, and some of them are reflected in the turmoil of the Muslim world. But treating the two as equal increases both conflicts. The Christian right wants those who oppose them to think that way. They're counting on it. People like Hannity and Coulter are couting on it. Overstating the issue allows your opponents to make you look foolish. Understating it allows your opponents to define the entire debate.
In the end, what the hell do any of us know.
posted by wayside at 7:50 PM on February 5, 2006
The bridge is in New York, it crosses over into Brooklyn. I hear it can be had for a pittance. And Arizona is lovely this time of year. So I hear...
So we can go back and forth with "the Muslim world is doing this" and "but the western world has done that", and nobody is qualified to define what actually IS a moral equivelant. It isn't my job, certainly.
Philip Roth once pointed out (in response to his work being out of line with the Jewish political agenda of the time) that there are better ways to keep it from becoming 1939 again than acting as if it is still 1939, or as if it is always 1939. The current cultural war in the U.S. carries its own issues, and some of them are reflected in the turmoil of the Muslim world. But treating the two as equal increases both conflicts. The Christian right wants those who oppose them to think that way. They're counting on it. People like Hannity and Coulter are couting on it. Overstating the issue allows your opponents to make you look foolish. Understating it allows your opponents to define the entire debate.
In the end, what the hell do any of us know.
posted by wayside at 7:50 PM on February 5, 2006
Why does radical Islam suffer such a fundamental disconnect with the rest of the world?
Although I don't agree or at least understand the outrage taking place over the use of the image of Mohammed, I don't think it's "their" job to connect with us. My point being is the West is not the standard to be followed.
My thinking is along the lines of the late 1800's and early 1900's in the USA - where "I don't know why they don't want to go onto a reservation."
posted by fluffycreature at 7:51 PM on February 5, 2006
Although I don't agree or at least understand the outrage taking place over the use of the image of Mohammed, I don't think it's "their" job to connect with us. My point being is the West is not the standard to be followed.
My thinking is along the lines of the late 1800's and early 1900's in the USA - where "I don't know why they don't want to go onto a reservation."
posted by fluffycreature at 7:51 PM on February 5, 2006
@blahblahblah - Thanks for the NYT link
@Ethereal Bligh - Thanks for the excerpt
Let's not forget Saudi sponsored Wahhabism, which is also pretty aggressive. Also the internationally organized Muslim Brotherhood.
All these organisation worked hard to become grassroot movements - talking directly to the people and acting with them. They have long won the war for the hearts and minds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
posted by homodigitalis at 7:56 PM on February 5, 2006
@Ethereal Bligh - Thanks for the excerpt
Let's not forget Saudi sponsored Wahhabism, which is also pretty aggressive. Also the internationally organized Muslim Brotherhood.
All these organisation worked hard to become grassroot movements - talking directly to the people and acting with them. They have long won the war for the hearts and minds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
posted by homodigitalis at 7:56 PM on February 5, 2006
Middle East: Bombings and killings of infidels in the name of Allah.
USA: Bombings and killings of abortion clinics and doctors in the name of God.
its a matter of scale
posted by wayside at 8:01 PM on February 5, 2006
USA: Bombings and killings of abortion clinics and doctors in the name of God.
its a matter of scale
posted by wayside at 8:01 PM on February 5, 2006
The fact of the matter is that Islam is in a more violent, radical and xenophobic phase. Christianity is not. Christianity has been in the past, and the Crusades are just one example. But a very large portion, probably half, of the world's Christian population lives in Western secular societies that all have long-standing cultures of tolerance.
"Well you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his," said Lt Gen Boykin. "I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."
posted by Rothko at 8:10 PM on February 5, 2006
"Well you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his," said Lt Gen Boykin. "I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."
posted by Rothko at 8:10 PM on February 5, 2006
And that's precisely my point.
Middle East: predominant religion is Islam, x% of Muslims are fanatic wackos
USA: predominant religion is Christianity, x% of Christians are fanatic wackos
and if you define X, you get my point exaclty.
posted by wayside at 8:11 PM on February 5, 2006
Middle East: predominant religion is Islam, x% of Muslims are fanatic wackos
USA: predominant religion is Christianity, x% of Christians are fanatic wackos
and if you define X, you get my point exaclty.
posted by wayside at 8:11 PM on February 5, 2006
bugbread: I don't think I'm too far afield in noting the fact the current state of Western culture is not unlike that of the Middle East in that we've got our own religious wackos, racists, and fascists who broadcast their hate-filled sermons every day.
I understand that, but from what I can tell, the counterargument is about degree, not nature.
Wayside is saying the equivalent of: "Carrefour has more types of cheese than the local convenience store."
You're countering with "That's not true. The local convenience store also has cheese."
That type of counterargument doesn't really counter the argument. The counterargument should indicate that the local convenience store has as much or more cheese than Carrefour, not just that it has cheese at all.
Once again, not disagreeing or agreeing with what you're trying to say, but it seems like you're either not saying what you mean to say, or you're not understanding what Wayside is saying
posted by Bugbread at 8:14 PM on February 5, 2006
I understand that, but from what I can tell, the counterargument is about degree, not nature.
Wayside is saying the equivalent of: "Carrefour has more types of cheese than the local convenience store."
You're countering with "That's not true. The local convenience store also has cheese."
That type of counterargument doesn't really counter the argument. The counterargument should indicate that the local convenience store has as much or more cheese than Carrefour, not just that it has cheese at all.
Once again, not disagreeing or agreeing with what you're trying to say, but it seems like you're either not saying what you mean to say, or you're not understanding what Wayside is saying
posted by Bugbread at 8:14 PM on February 5, 2006
fandango_matt, but you need more than a handful of people to torch an embassy or cause these riots in the streets. We're not talking about a difference between 4 on one side and 8 on the other. The radicals and the people who follow/listen to those radicals seem to be, if not a majority, then at least very close to one.
They're probably just bored. I'd torch an embassy a week if I could. Japanese revisionist history text? Torch the embassy! Chinese censorship? Torch the embassy! Iranian WMD? Torch the embassy! Shooting that Brazilian guy in the UK? Torch the embassy!
Seriously, once people start rioting they only need to be a little upset and a little bored to do all sorts of damage.
I've seen collage students tare down street lamps with their bare hands just because a party got broken up and they were forced out of the bars an hour or two early (and tear gassed indiscriminately, but that's a whole other issue)
posted by delmoi at 8:20 PM on February 5, 2006
They're probably just bored. I'd torch an embassy a week if I could. Japanese revisionist history text? Torch the embassy! Chinese censorship? Torch the embassy! Iranian WMD? Torch the embassy! Shooting that Brazilian guy in the UK? Torch the embassy!
Seriously, once people start rioting they only need to be a little upset and a little bored to do all sorts of damage.
I've seen collage students tare down street lamps with their bare hands just because a party got broken up and they were forced out of the bars an hour or two early (and tear gassed indiscriminately, but that's a whole other issue)
posted by delmoi at 8:20 PM on February 5, 2006
Fired from the Boston Globe in 2000, Jeff Jacoby invokes the "It's all murky, and everybody probably does it" plagiarism defense.
Ah, "conservative values".....
posted by troutfishing at 8:20 PM on February 5, 2006
Ah, "conservative values".....
posted by troutfishing at 8:20 PM on February 5, 2006
fandango_matt : Middle East: predominant religion is Islam, x% of Muslims are fanatic wackos
USA: predominant religion is Christianity, x% of Christians are fanatic wackos
wayside: and if you define X, you get my point exaclty.
Oh, well, great, it looks like I'm misunderstanding both of your points now.
I was interpreting wayside as saying something more along the lines of:
Middle East= A number of fanatics, average fanaticity of B, total fanaticism = A x B = C
USA = D number of fanatics, average fanacity of E, total fanaticism = D x E = F
C>F
And hence, when you posit that the US has fanatics, well, sure, D > 0, so that will be true, but that wouldn't directly affect whether C > F or not.
But it now appears that wayside wasn't talking about the total fanaticity of the US vs. the Middle East, but just the population percentages...
posted by Bugbread at 8:20 PM on February 5, 2006
USA: predominant religion is Christianity, x% of Christians are fanatic wackos
wayside: and if you define X, you get my point exaclty.
Oh, well, great, it looks like I'm misunderstanding both of your points now.
I was interpreting wayside as saying something more along the lines of:
Middle East= A number of fanatics, average fanaticity of B, total fanaticism = A x B = C
USA = D number of fanatics, average fanacity of E, total fanaticism = D x E = F
C>F
And hence, when you posit that the US has fanatics, well, sure, D > 0, so that will be true, but that wouldn't directly affect whether C > F or not.
But it now appears that wayside wasn't talking about the total fanaticity of the US vs. the Middle East, but just the population percentages...
posted by Bugbread at 8:20 PM on February 5, 2006
Wayside is saying the equivalent of: "Carrefour has more types of cheese than the local convenience store."
You're countering with "That's not true. The local convenience store also has cheese."
I think this is pretty accurate. At least in regard to what I was trying to say. Just because there is evidence of intolerance in western culture doesn't mean it is equivelant to the mass/violent intolerance currently being witnessed.
posted by wayside at 8:21 PM on February 5, 2006
You're countering with "That's not true. The local convenience store also has cheese."
I think this is pretty accurate. At least in regard to what I was trying to say. Just because there is evidence of intolerance in western culture doesn't mean it is equivelant to the mass/violent intolerance currently being witnessed.
posted by wayside at 8:21 PM on February 5, 2006
Bugbread: how do you define "total fanaticity"?
Wayside: I don't, really. It's certainly not quantifiable. In extreme situations, I suppose it could be quite clear (for example, how do you define "total aggressiveness"? That's pretty hard to do. But does a prison have more total aggressiveness than a hippy love-fest? Probably). But you certainly couldn't assign a number to it.
If you're purely talking % of crazies, then I'd have to agree with fandango_matt; the US has plenty of people who believe in the Rapture, the sanctity of the bible, etc., probably enough to pretty much match the Middle East. If you're talking the total amount of craziness, in the sense of how many people are crazy, and how crazy they are, then I'd have to agree with you re: the Middle East currently being crazier.
posted by Bugbread at 8:37 PM on February 5, 2006
Wayside: I don't, really. It's certainly not quantifiable. In extreme situations, I suppose it could be quite clear (for example, how do you define "total aggressiveness"? That's pretty hard to do. But does a prison have more total aggressiveness than a hippy love-fest? Probably). But you certainly couldn't assign a number to it.
If you're purely talking % of crazies, then I'd have to agree with fandango_matt; the US has plenty of people who believe in the Rapture, the sanctity of the bible, etc., probably enough to pretty much match the Middle East. If you're talking the total amount of craziness, in the sense of how many people are crazy, and how crazy they are, then I'd have to agree with you re: the Middle East currently being crazier.
posted by Bugbread at 8:37 PM on February 5, 2006
As for the Muslim minorities in Europe, I've already read the answer somewhere in this thread: they should be taught to at least understand the values of the peoples in the countries they live in -- as surely a child of immigrants from the Bronx cannot live in Pakistan without having to acquire some grasp of sharia. On the subject of the latter, I've read Ibn Warraq's books and my fellow Mefites can find something very close to what I would write in his essays, except that I can't write for toffee.
And certainly George W. Bush should be impeached for treason.
posted by davy at 8:44 PM on February 5, 2006
And certainly George W. Bush should be impeached for treason.
posted by davy at 8:44 PM on February 5, 2006
the US has plenty of people who believe in the Rapture, the sanctity of the bible, etc., probably enough to pretty much match the Middle East.
I don't have stats to back this up, but I find this statement rather absurd. It does, however, succinctly define the point with which I disagree. I've been to the middle east, and I've been all over America and Europe, and I've met all kinds of crazies in my life. Some of them I pass on the street every day. This isn't to say that I know anything more than anybody else. But I find it hard to equate the reactionary elements of modern western cultures with the mainstream extremeism of the modern middle east. I hope those in the west who want similar cultural extremism never succeed in turning us into the mob we are currently seeing. It plays into their hands to pretend that they already have.
posted by wayside at 8:48 PM on February 5, 2006
I don't have stats to back this up, but I find this statement rather absurd. It does, however, succinctly define the point with which I disagree. I've been to the middle east, and I've been all over America and Europe, and I've met all kinds of crazies in my life. Some of them I pass on the street every day. This isn't to say that I know anything more than anybody else. But I find it hard to equate the reactionary elements of modern western cultures with the mainstream extremeism of the modern middle east. I hope those in the west who want similar cultural extremism never succeed in turning us into the mob we are currently seeing. It plays into their hands to pretend that they already have.
posted by wayside at 8:48 PM on February 5, 2006
The USA is getting crazier by the day. The mid-East is getting crazier by the day. Neither looks like it's going to recover from the craziness any time soon. At the rate they're going, these two insane factions are going to soon become intent on turning the world to glass.
Ban religion entirely. It's the only way to save ourselves.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:48 PM on February 5, 2006
Ban religion entirely. It's the only way to save ourselves.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:48 PM on February 5, 2006
But I find it hard to equate the reactionary elements of modern western cultures with the mainstream extremeism of the modern middle east.
Chances are you're so used to our crazies that you don't even notice them any more.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:50 PM on February 5, 2006
Chances are you're so used to our crazies that you don't even notice them any more.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:50 PM on February 5, 2006
I've seen collage students tare down street lamps with their bare hands
Damn, I had no idea those arts & crafts types could get so worked up!
Ban religion entirely. It's the only way to save ourselves.
That would be ideal, but history proves the prohibition of drugs doesn't work.
posted by zarah at 8:53 PM on February 5, 2006
Damn, I had no idea those arts & crafts types could get so worked up!
Ban religion entirely. It's the only way to save ourselves.
That would be ideal, but history proves the prohibition of drugs doesn't work.
posted by zarah at 8:53 PM on February 5, 2006
The USA is getting crazier by the day. The mid-East is getting crazier by the day. Neither looks like it's going to recover from the craziness any time soon. At the rate they're going, these two insane factions are going to soon become intent on turning the world to glass.
"The Earth is degenerating these days. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no longer mind their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching."
-Assyrian stone tablet, c.2800bc
welcome to humanity
posted by wayside at 8:55 PM on February 5, 2006
"The Earth is degenerating these days. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no longer mind their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching."
-Assyrian stone tablet, c.2800bc
welcome to humanity
posted by wayside at 8:55 PM on February 5, 2006
ubersturm:
I understand what you're saying about "Their outrage, as expressed in words or protests or boycotts or any sort of nonviolent activities, seems not unreasonable", I really do. But reading that just hit a button with me that has irked me since I started following this thread.
I find it funny that the same people or mindset that jump down the throats of the American Christian right (I am no friend of theirs) are quick to jump to the defense of Muslim fundamentalists. Whether or not that is the argument being made in this thread by some contributors, it is how it is being interpreted by quite a number of people - present self included.
I think that the salient point here, cutting out the fat, is this: western newspapers print politically satirical pictures of Mohammad. Muslims around the world flip the fuck out. News at 11.
Modern Christians and Jews and most other groups would flip the fuck out like so many Muslims are over these cartoons. We may get into arguments and debates and question the tactics and methods of the Christian Right in the US, but it's quite a stretch to say that we should 'fear' them. Their attitude, moralising and belief in things like Intelligent Design piss me the fuck off - but I don't fear them. I fear radical muslims and I feel that Islam as a whole is now a platform for fundamental Islamists. There is reason to fear it, it cannot and should not be tolerated and I really dont see any valid justifications for the behavior being exhibited. If for no other reason than: It's the 21st century. Get with the program. The rest of us don't have time or patience to deal with your bullshit.
This turned quickly into a rant. It's late. I am tired and not well thought out at the moment. I apologize for that.
posted by tgrundke at 8:55 PM on February 5, 2006
I understand what you're saying about "Their outrage, as expressed in words or protests or boycotts or any sort of nonviolent activities, seems not unreasonable", I really do. But reading that just hit a button with me that has irked me since I started following this thread.
I find it funny that the same people or mindset that jump down the throats of the American Christian right (I am no friend of theirs) are quick to jump to the defense of Muslim fundamentalists. Whether or not that is the argument being made in this thread by some contributors, it is how it is being interpreted by quite a number of people - present self included.
I think that the salient point here, cutting out the fat, is this: western newspapers print politically satirical pictures of Mohammad. Muslims around the world flip the fuck out. News at 11.
Modern Christians and Jews and most other groups would flip the fuck out like so many Muslims are over these cartoons. We may get into arguments and debates and question the tactics and methods of the Christian Right in the US, but it's quite a stretch to say that we should 'fear' them. Their attitude, moralising and belief in things like Intelligent Design piss me the fuck off - but I don't fear them. I fear radical muslims and I feel that Islam as a whole is now a platform for fundamental Islamists. There is reason to fear it, it cannot and should not be tolerated and I really dont see any valid justifications for the behavior being exhibited. If for no other reason than: It's the 21st century. Get with the program. The rest of us don't have time or patience to deal with your bullshit.
This turned quickly into a rant. It's late. I am tired and not well thought out at the moment. I apologize for that.
posted by tgrundke at 8:55 PM on February 5, 2006
Update: in my previous rant, I meant to say, "Modern Christians and Jews and most other groups would *NOT* flip the fuck out..."
I told you. I'm tired.
posted by tgrundke at 8:57 PM on February 5, 2006
I told you. I'm tired.
posted by tgrundke at 8:57 PM on February 5, 2006
I find it hard to equate the reactionary elements of modern western cultures with the mainstream extremeism of the modern middle east.
You say this (apparently) in disagreement with me, but I don't think we're in disagreement in the end.
You define craziness as percentage population. So, in your mind (random numbers), the US is 50% crazy, and the Middle East is 75% crazy.
I define craziness as percent of population, as well as how crazy they are. So in my mind (random numbers), the US is 50% crazy people, at an average craziness factor of 100, for a total craziness index of 50, and the Middle East is 50% crazy people at an average craziness factor of 150, so a total craziness index of 75.
Boiled down, that means we both agree that currently the Middle East is, on average, crazier than the US. We just use different definitions of "craziness".
posted by Bugbread at 9:03 PM on February 5, 2006
You say this (apparently) in disagreement with me, but I don't think we're in disagreement in the end.
You define craziness as percentage population. So, in your mind (random numbers), the US is 50% crazy, and the Middle East is 75% crazy.
I define craziness as percent of population, as well as how crazy they are. So in my mind (random numbers), the US is 50% crazy people, at an average craziness factor of 100, for a total craziness index of 50, and the Middle East is 50% crazy people at an average craziness factor of 150, so a total craziness index of 75.
Boiled down, that means we both agree that currently the Middle East is, on average, crazier than the US. We just use different definitions of "craziness".
posted by Bugbread at 9:03 PM on February 5, 2006
There is clearly a difference between the two societies.
The western societies still have their proper count of embassy buildings.
posted by Richard Daly at 9:04 PM on February 5, 2006
The western societies still have their proper count of embassy buildings.
posted by Richard Daly at 9:04 PM on February 5, 2006
Ban religion entirely. It's the only way to save ourselves.
That would be ideal, but history proves the prohibition of drugs doesn't work.
I love both these comments. It should be dialogue in a movie.
We do need to move beyond a point where religion is the dominant cultural force in the world. We need a philosophical shift on a very large scale to progress as a species. I believe such a thing is beginning, and the uprising of fundamentalist fervor in all parts of the world is a reaction to that. But I think it will take many generations for that shift to take place, and for the moment (meaning the lifetimes of everybody reading this thread) we're stuck with the current state of silliness.
posted by wayside at 9:06 PM on February 5, 2006
That would be ideal, but history proves the prohibition of drugs doesn't work.
I love both these comments. It should be dialogue in a movie.
We do need to move beyond a point where religion is the dominant cultural force in the world. We need a philosophical shift on a very large scale to progress as a species. I believe such a thing is beginning, and the uprising of fundamentalist fervor in all parts of the world is a reaction to that. But I think it will take many generations for that shift to take place, and for the moment (meaning the lifetimes of everybody reading this thread) we're stuck with the current state of silliness.
posted by wayside at 9:06 PM on February 5, 2006
I define craziness as percent of population, as well as how crazy they are. So in my mind (random numbers), the US is 50% crazy people, at an average craziness factor of 100, for a total craziness index of 50, and the Middle East is 50% crazy people at an average craziness factor of 150, so a total craziness index of 75.
I wish I had the mathematical knowledge to express that as an equation. Funny thing is, if there is any argument here, I don't think its about how the wold shoud be, but rather how it is.
posted by wayside at 9:10 PM on February 5, 2006
I wish I had the mathematical knowledge to express that as an equation. Funny thing is, if there is any argument here, I don't think its about how the wold shoud be, but rather how it is.
posted by wayside at 9:10 PM on February 5, 2006
The muslim world's broad failure to follow the western world's sociological "englightenment" (I use the term historically, not derisively), especially after once having lead the world in the pursuit of science, is an interesting question for sure. But this little stunt has nothing to say on the matter.
edgeways: If you stand in front of someone and verbally abuse them can you be surprised if they punch you in the face?
Exactly right. I will not "be Dane" if so being means championing this kind of hate speech. These comics were designed to imflame racial stereotypes and marginalize an entire class of people during incindiary circumstances. That kind of bile can be far more dangerous than restrictions on "free speech", which is why many countries outlaw it.
Would you be so quick to defend the "Hutu Power Radio" RTLM which played such a crucial role inciting the Rwandan genocide?
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:13 PM on February 5, 2006
edgeways: If you stand in front of someone and verbally abuse them can you be surprised if they punch you in the face?
Exactly right. I will not "be Dane" if so being means championing this kind of hate speech. These comics were designed to imflame racial stereotypes and marginalize an entire class of people during incindiary circumstances. That kind of bile can be far more dangerous than restrictions on "free speech", which is why many countries outlaw it.
Would you be so quick to defend the "Hutu Power Radio" RTLM which played such a crucial role inciting the Rwandan genocide?
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:13 PM on February 5, 2006
Fandango_Matt: we don't disagree about anything significant, and I'd rather the world was filled with people like you that the people it seems to be filled with. Sleep well.
posted by wayside at 9:18 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by wayside at 9:18 PM on February 5, 2006
I wish I had the mathematical knowledge to express that as an equation.
I'll humour ya.
X = Craziness Percentage
Y = Craziness Factor
Z = Total Craziness
X * Y = Z
For the US:
Xu * Yu = Zu
For the Middle East:
Xm * Ym = Zm
The big question being, "Is Zm > Zu?"
If you're saying we don't have riots and mobs that erupt when a religious group is offended, I beg to differ--we do have mob scenes and the only reason they don't erupt in violence is the heavy police presence.
What do you posit is the reason for the heavy police presence?
posted by Bugbread at 9:24 PM on February 5, 2006
I'll humour ya.
X = Craziness Percentage
Y = Craziness Factor
Z = Total Craziness
X * Y = Z
For the US:
Xu * Yu = Zu
For the Middle East:
Xm * Ym = Zm
The big question being, "Is Zm > Zu?"
If you're saying we don't have riots and mobs that erupt when a religious group is offended, I beg to differ--we do have mob scenes and the only reason they don't erupt in violence is the heavy police presence.
What do you posit is the reason for the heavy police presence?
posted by Bugbread at 9:24 PM on February 5, 2006
Er, note: That was a straightforward question, not a challenge or anything.
posted by Bugbread at 9:28 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by Bugbread at 9:28 PM on February 5, 2006
The big question being, "Is Zm > Zu?"
I'd love to see a whole thread expressed in similar equations. It would overcome the whole problem of semantics.
Thanks for humoring me, I was hoping you would.
posted by wayside at 9:31 PM on February 5, 2006
I'd love to see a whole thread expressed in similar equations. It would overcome the whole problem of semantics.
Thanks for humoring me, I was hoping you would.
posted by wayside at 9:31 PM on February 5, 2006
to prevent the riots that surely would occur were the police absent.
And then the corrollary question: why the absence of police presence in the places where these riots are occuring? Is it due to lack of police, or due to tacit acceptance of what the rioters are doing, or both?
The answer to that question is the most important, perhaps.
posted by Bugbread at 9:51 PM on February 5, 2006
And then the corrollary question: why the absence of police presence in the places where these riots are occuring? Is it due to lack of police, or due to tacit acceptance of what the rioters are doing, or both?
The answer to that question is the most important, perhaps.
posted by Bugbread at 9:51 PM on February 5, 2006
Is it due to lack of police, or due to tacit acceptance of what the rioters are doing, or both?
Thanks bugbread. I hadn't looked at the issue from this angle before.
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:54 PM on February 5, 2006
Thanks bugbread. I hadn't looked at the issue from this angle before.
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:54 PM on February 5, 2006
hmm, simple, innocent donuts
sorry, couldn't resist.
posted by wayside at 9:55 PM on February 5, 2006
sorry, couldn't resist.
posted by wayside at 9:55 PM on February 5, 2006
Would you be so quick to defend the "Hutu Power Radio" RTLM which played such a crucial role inciting the Rwandan genocide?
Exhorting a population to violence is a much different thing than publishing vaguely offensive cartoons. Let's keep some perspective.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 10:25 PM on February 5, 2006
The article says, "The same is true of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Mormons: They don't lash out in violence when their religious sensibilities are offended. " Apparently the writer doesn't know about Christians who bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors.
posted by onegreeneye at 10:28 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by onegreeneye at 10:28 PM on February 5, 2006
Slarty Bartfast : Exhorting a population to violence is a much different thing than publishing vaguely offensive cartoons. Let's keep some perspective.
That's fair. But the point is there are reasonable limits to "free speech", and I think this one pushes it. In any case I'm not motivated to use them as proof that "Muslims are disconnected from the rest of the civilized world".
posted by Popular Ethics at 10:35 PM on February 5, 2006
That's fair. But the point is there are reasonable limits to "free speech", and I think this one pushes it. In any case I'm not motivated to use them as proof that "Muslims are disconnected from the rest of the civilized world".
posted by Popular Ethics at 10:35 PM on February 5, 2006
I wonder which is more "disrespectful" - a bunch of badly drawn cartoons of some bearded guy, or fundamentalist Muslims oppressing, raping, and killing women, executing gays"
posted by aerify at 6:13 PM PST on February 5 [!]
My vote for most disrespectful is...a nation which befriends and funds the tyrants who promote such atrocities, in the middle east, central america, etc., then gets suddenly moral when the puppets aren't our puppets anymore. How many murderous dictators has the U.S. KEPT in power over the years, including the Shah of Iran, Sadaam himself, Osama Bin Laden when he was our pal, funding rape and death squads, funding the "dissappearing" of thousands in Central America, only to call our puppets monsters when they stop taking U.S. orders? Ever ask the Iranians why they hate the U.S. so much? Ever heard of the School of the Americas? Nuns raped and murdered in Central America by soldiers funded and trained with U.S. tax dollars? Marcos, anyone? Americans are always so quick to throw stones in the belief that we don't engage in "oppressing, raping, and killing women," etc. We surely do. We just do it on someone else's soil.
posted by onegreeneye at 10:54 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by aerify at 6:13 PM PST on February 5 [!]
My vote for most disrespectful is...a nation which befriends and funds the tyrants who promote such atrocities, in the middle east, central america, etc., then gets suddenly moral when the puppets aren't our puppets anymore. How many murderous dictators has the U.S. KEPT in power over the years, including the Shah of Iran, Sadaam himself, Osama Bin Laden when he was our pal, funding rape and death squads, funding the "dissappearing" of thousands in Central America, only to call our puppets monsters when they stop taking U.S. orders? Ever ask the Iranians why they hate the U.S. so much? Ever heard of the School of the Americas? Nuns raped and murdered in Central America by soldiers funded and trained with U.S. tax dollars? Marcos, anyone? Americans are always so quick to throw stones in the belief that we don't engage in "oppressing, raping, and killing women," etc. We surely do. We just do it on someone else's soil.
posted by onegreeneye at 10:54 PM on February 5, 2006
Rothko, if by your comment you meant to compare me to Boykin, you're proving yourself to be the miserably little ignorant loudmouthed fuckwit that you are.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:54 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:54 PM on February 5, 2006
Ever notice there's no such thing as militant Satanism?
You obviously aren't familiar with the Scandinavian black metal scene, bwg.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:41 AM on February 6, 2006
You obviously aren't familiar with the Scandinavian black metal scene, bwg.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:41 AM on February 6, 2006
uh, Bligh, Rothko appears to merely be attempting to refute your argument that christianity is somehow not still in a violent, radical, xenophobic phase.
posted by Hat Maui at 12:43 AM on February 6, 2006
posted by Hat Maui at 12:43 AM on February 6, 2006
Oh savage irony!
Muslims marched in the centre of London chanting "Freedom go to Hell!"
posted by magpie68 at 1:17 AM on February 6, 2006
Muslims marched in the centre of London chanting "Freedom go to Hell!"
posted by magpie68 at 1:17 AM on February 6, 2006
Though it is America that taught Europe about "separation of Church and State" and "freedom of the press"
Voltaire and quite a few other Enlightenment Frogs and Wops would laugh their cheese-eating asses off at such a sad, dumb display of ignorance
posted by matteo at 1:37 AM on February 6, 2006
Voltaire and quite a few other Enlightenment Frogs and Wops would laugh their cheese-eating asses off at such a sad, dumb display of ignorance
posted by matteo at 1:37 AM on February 6, 2006
You obviously aren't familiar with the Scandinavian black metal scene, bwg.
Aren't those the bands with really ridiculous costumes?
Fundies are still scarier ...
posted by bwg at 1:49 AM on February 6, 2006
Aren't those the bands with really ridiculous costumes?
Fundies are still scarier ...
posted by bwg at 1:49 AM on February 6, 2006
The Arab European League chimes in:
3.
It's a kind of interesting excercise to feel the same utter revulsion and anger that fundamentalist muslims felt about the muhammed cartoons.
posted by Tlogmer at 2:40 AM on February 6, 2006
I am for the absolute freedom of speech everywhere, and that’s why I call upon every free sole among Arabs to use the Danish flag as a substitute for toilet paper. To illustrate every wall with graffiti making fun of everything Europe holds as holy: dancing rabbis on the carcasses of Palestinian children, hoax gas-chambers built in Hollywood in 1946 with Steven Spielberg’s approval stamp, and Aids spreading fagots. Let us defend the absolute freedom of speech altogether, wouldn’t that be a noble cause?And they've printed these cartoons: 1, 2,
3.
It's a kind of interesting excercise to feel the same utter revulsion and anger that fundamentalist muslims felt about the muhammed cartoons.
posted by Tlogmer at 2:40 AM on February 6, 2006
More savage irony!
Spokesman for a group that helped to organise last week's protests in London (placard slogans included "Butcher those who mock Islam", "Behead those who insult Islam", "Freedom go to hell", "Liberalism go to hell", "Freedom of expression go to hell") tells the newspaper
"There were a mixture of different people at the demonstration. They were expressing their freedom."
posted by drill_here_fore_seismics at 2:47 AM on February 6, 2006
Spokesman for a group that helped to organise last week's protests in London (placard slogans included "Butcher those who mock Islam", "Behead those who insult Islam", "Freedom go to hell", "Liberalism go to hell", "Freedom of expression go to hell") tells the newspaper
"There were a mixture of different people at the demonstration. They were expressing their freedom."
posted by drill_here_fore_seismics at 2:47 AM on February 6, 2006
aerify:
And freedom of expression does not end where someone else becomes offended. That is totally contrary to the idea of freedom of speech.
So if I say that you are a fucking stupid asshole is not a problem for as long as it's my right to free speech, bastard (freespeecheness)
posted by zouhair at 3:47 AM on February 6, 2006
And freedom of expression does not end where someone else becomes offended. That is totally contrary to the idea of freedom of speech.
So if I say that you are a fucking stupid asshole is not a problem for as long as it's my right to free speech, bastard (freespeecheness)
posted by zouhair at 3:47 AM on February 6, 2006
The fact of the matter is that Islam is in a more violent, radical and xenophobic phase. Christianity is not. Christianity has been in the past, and the Crusades are just one example. But a very large portion, probably half, of the world's Christian population lives in Western secular societies that all have long-standing cultures of tolerance.
I don't believe mature religions have 'phases'. The populations that adopt them do, and some middle eastern, islamic populations are going through violent, radical and xenophobic phases for many different and complicated reasons. This is the problem with terms like 'islamofascist'. Look to the people, not the religion.
posted by Summer at 4:01 AM on February 6, 2006
I don't believe mature religions have 'phases'. The populations that adopt them do, and some middle eastern, islamic populations are going through violent, radical and xenophobic phases for many different and complicated reasons. This is the problem with terms like 'islamofascist'. Look to the people, not the religion.
posted by Summer at 4:01 AM on February 6, 2006
Everyone asking why the outrage has come to the forefront now, there was outrage from the first appearance of the cartoons which led to peaceful protests and groups wanting to meet to discuss it. All they got was a brush-off and the waving of the "freedom of speech" flag in their face rather than open discussions about why they were outraged and what could be done to offset it. The outrage has been building this whole time. It only really started getting nasty when the cartoons began to be reprinted (and shown on TV) and new ones added in newspapers all over the place.
Sort of like tapping a hornet's nest and having a few hornets come out to express their displeasure and then taking a baseball bat to the nest and wondering why the whole swarm gets worked up, isn't it?
Wikipedia has a decent time line of the events that have led up to this, and this sudden outbreak of outrage and violence isn't all that sudden.
posted by Orb at 4:03 AM on February 6, 2006
Sort of like tapping a hornet's nest and having a few hornets come out to express their displeasure and then taking a baseball bat to the nest and wondering why the whole swarm gets worked up, isn't it?
Wikipedia has a decent time line of the events that have led up to this, and this sudden outbreak of outrage and violence isn't all that sudden.
posted by Orb at 4:03 AM on February 6, 2006
Who gives a fuck what a few nutty Muslims are doing when an overwhelmingly Christian nation of 290 million is at war with two countries and rattling sabers at a third?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:23 AM on February 6, 2006
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:23 AM on February 6, 2006
Personally I think we need more cartoons like this one.
posted by flabdablet at 4:49 AM on February 6, 2006
posted by flabdablet at 4:49 AM on February 6, 2006
You can always count on Metafilter to turn a discussion on any topic into one on how the Bush admin is bad.
posted by shoos at 4:56 AM on February 6, 2006
posted by shoos at 4:56 AM on February 6, 2006
In the space of a generation, Islam must make an adjustment that Christianity made with great difficulty over half a millennium. Both for theological and social reasons, it is unequipped to do so.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:18 AM on February 6, 2006
posted by IndigoJones at 5:18 AM on February 6, 2006
Bligh wrote: "[T]he same mefites who show up in droves to bash the crazy religious people (well, Christians) a few times a week—you know, how ignorant and irrational it is to believe these things—show up in these sorts of threads to defend Moslems."
Such a wonderful overgeneralization. Too bad it's not even close to true. I, for one, have not defended "Moslems" here.
posted by davy at 6:28 AM on February 6, 2006
Such a wonderful overgeneralization. Too bad it's not even close to true. I, for one, have not defended "Moslems" here.
posted by davy at 6:28 AM on February 6, 2006
Oh savage irony!
Muslims marched in the centre of London chanting "Freedom go to Hell!"
On that note: an almost prophetic 1997 piece from the Onion.
posted by funambulist at 6:43 AM on February 6, 2006
Muslims marched in the centre of London chanting "Freedom go to Hell!"
On that note: an almost prophetic 1997 piece from the Onion.
posted by funambulist at 6:43 AM on February 6, 2006
Isn't interesting that certain Americans always need to focus every possible news item on themselves?
Yeah it is. It's also very annoying.
And for the first time in my life I find myself agreeing with that Hitchens bastard. Especially on the notion that the US government had no business at all stating their opinion on this, more so because it's a crappy opinion.
posted by funambulist at 6:49 AM on February 6, 2006
Yeah it is. It's also very annoying.
And for the first time in my life I find myself agreeing with that Hitchens bastard. Especially on the notion that the US government had no business at all stating their opinion on this, more so because it's a crappy opinion.
posted by funambulist at 6:49 AM on February 6, 2006
If you're saying we don't have riots and mobs that erupt when a religious group is offended, I beg to differ--we do have mob scenes and the only reason they don't erupt in violence is the heavy police presence.
fandango_matt, one important difference for me is, none of that will stop me from travelling to the US or working with US companies or selling my products in the US.
Or writing in my newspaper all the nastiest things about the US and/or fanatics in the US. Or caricaturing Bush, or Americans, or religious figures that a majority of Americans revere. No one will be literally demanding my head on a platter for that. My embassy in Washington will not be burnt down. Diplomatic and economic relations with my country will not be severed over an offensive caricature.
So, religious fanatics in the US are a threat, and not just domestically, yes, and of course those politicians who pander to them are a threat too, and the wars they wage and the propaganda they sell -- but in a different way, that's parallel to this, they don't cancel each other out.
And frankly, I'm tired of how everything needs to be compared to the US of A. Yeah ok most of you people live there, it's natural. But sometimes I get the feeling there's some sort of perverse pride in picturing your country as the paradigm against which all insanity has to be compared to establish if it's more or less insane or serious. It gets tiresome.
posted by funambulist at 7:09 AM on February 6, 2006
fandango_matt, one important difference for me is, none of that will stop me from travelling to the US or working with US companies or selling my products in the US.
Or writing in my newspaper all the nastiest things about the US and/or fanatics in the US. Or caricaturing Bush, or Americans, or religious figures that a majority of Americans revere. No one will be literally demanding my head on a platter for that. My embassy in Washington will not be burnt down. Diplomatic and economic relations with my country will not be severed over an offensive caricature.
So, religious fanatics in the US are a threat, and not just domestically, yes, and of course those politicians who pander to them are a threat too, and the wars they wage and the propaganda they sell -- but in a different way, that's parallel to this, they don't cancel each other out.
And frankly, I'm tired of how everything needs to be compared to the US of A. Yeah ok most of you people live there, it's natural. But sometimes I get the feeling there's some sort of perverse pride in picturing your country as the paradigm against which all insanity has to be compared to establish if it's more or less insane or serious. It gets tiresome.
posted by funambulist at 7:09 AM on February 6, 2006
(by the way, last paragraph was general rant, not directed against you specifically)
posted by funambulist at 7:11 AM on February 6, 2006
posted by funambulist at 7:11 AM on February 6, 2006
Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.
The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny
Oops!
posted by jamesonandwater at 7:17 AM on February 6, 2006
The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny
Oops!
posted by jamesonandwater at 7:17 AM on February 6, 2006
Rothko, if by your comment you meant to compare me to Boykin, you're proving yourself to be the miserably little ignorant loudmouthed fuckwit that you are
Perhaps you need a time-out.
posted by Rothko at 7:33 AM on February 6, 2006
Perhaps you need a time-out.
posted by Rothko at 7:33 AM on February 6, 2006
Rothko, if by your comment you meant to compare me to Boykin, you're proving yourself to be the miserably little ignorant loudmouthed fuckwit that you are.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:54 PM PST on February 5
Good thing anyone with a third-grader's reading comprehension can see that he wasn't comparing you to Boykin but rather pointing out how your contention that "a very large portion, probably half, of the world's Christian population lives in Western secular societies that all have long-standing cultures of tolerance" is utter bullshit.
But don't let that stop you from firing up the ridiculous lover's spat you obsess over.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:43 AM on February 6, 2006
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:54 PM PST on February 5
Good thing anyone with a third-grader's reading comprehension can see that he wasn't comparing you to Boykin but rather pointing out how your contention that "a very large portion, probably half, of the world's Christian population lives in Western secular societies that all have long-standing cultures of tolerance" is utter bullshit.
But don't let that stop you from firing up the ridiculous lover's spat you obsess over.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:43 AM on February 6, 2006
yeah: all those who compare this to happens American examples just so you can comprehend it = boring American insularity personified. Why not just discuss things as they are without lame homegrown comparisons?
posted by dydecker at 7:47 AM on February 6, 2006
posted by dydecker at 7:47 AM on February 6, 2006
Meanwhile while everybody is busy fending off imaginary enemies , somebody is getting obscenely richer while the majority is taking more and more risks without any financial backing or social security strong nets.
Don't worry about Arabs, sooner then not you'll be so worried about yourself a bunch of angry religious freaks will look like summer
posted by elpapacito at 8:10 AM on February 6, 2006
Don't worry about Arabs, sooner then not you'll be so worried about yourself a bunch of angry religious freaks will look like summer
posted by elpapacito at 8:10 AM on February 6, 2006
Manipulation? Certainly in Beruit.
posted by grahamwell at 9:05 AM on February 6, 2006
"The police seemed to know the demonstrators were coming and had turned out in force with barriers, barbed wire fences and several large fire trucks."Dial-a-mob by Text message
"The sheikhs told us to send five text messages to every true Muslim we knew urging them to participate ....The authorities gave a green light for us to organise the gathering in public and to participate in it."Now who might be behind this?
posted by grahamwell at 9:05 AM on February 6, 2006
Lets hope the two recent invasions help the arab nations learn about the american virtue of restraint.
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:54 AM on February 6, 2006
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:54 AM on February 6, 2006
The muslim world's broad failure to follow the western world's sociological "englightenment" (I use the term historically, not derisively), especially after once having lead the world in the pursuit of science, is an interesting question for sure. But this little stunt has nothing to say on the matter.
There may be an alarming bit of "learn from history" in that comment.
People in this thread keep talking about how the Muslim world needs to "catch up" to the Western world.
Thing of it is, the Muslim world lead the Western world in all those things we hold dear. It once was one of the world's most advanced civilizations, fully equipped with sciences, maths, libraries, human rights, all that great stuff.
Then the religionists got ahold of the culture.
The recent upswell of conservative religionists in power in the West mirrors that of conservative religionists in the West. We are following them.
Which is to say that it could get a whole helluva lot worse in the West if we don't learn our lessons from history. Ugh.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:27 AM on February 6, 2006
There may be an alarming bit of "learn from history" in that comment.
People in this thread keep talking about how the Muslim world needs to "catch up" to the Western world.
Thing of it is, the Muslim world lead the Western world in all those things we hold dear. It once was one of the world's most advanced civilizations, fully equipped with sciences, maths, libraries, human rights, all that great stuff.
Then the religionists got ahold of the culture.
The recent upswell of conservative religionists in power in the West mirrors that of conservative religionists in the West. We are following them.
Which is to say that it could get a whole helluva lot worse in the West if we don't learn our lessons from history. Ugh.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:27 AM on February 6, 2006
"HINDUS CONSIDER it sacrilegious to eat meat from cows, so when a Danish supermarket ran a sale on beef and veal last fall, Hindus everywhere reacted with outrage."
While Hindus considering eating cows sacrilege, they do not have a problem with non-Hindus eating beef. Muslims and Christians in India eat beef on a regular basis - India has McDonalds too.
The cow, while sacred, is not considered a god.
This fool needs to take a Religion 101 class at his community college.
If a Danish Supermarket say for example, had a sale on beef and emblazoned the package with a picture of Krishna, all hell would indeed break loose.
posted by turbanhead at 10:41 AM on February 6, 2006
While Hindus considering eating cows sacrilege, they do not have a problem with non-Hindus eating beef. Muslims and Christians in India eat beef on a regular basis - India has McDonalds too.
The cow, while sacred, is not considered a god.
This fool needs to take a Religion 101 class at his community college.
If a Danish Supermarket say for example, had a sale on beef and emblazoned the package with a picture of Krishna, all hell would indeed break loose.
posted by turbanhead at 10:41 AM on February 6, 2006
Then the religionists got ahold of the culture.
Oh yeah? It's an interesting argument, but it hangs on this phrase and I'd be interested if you'd flesh it out a bit. Many people have puzzled over why the Islamic world became 'stuck in its ways' after a glorious beginning (a beginning which also coincided with its greatest intensity and purity).
Perhaps a more promising line is that the furious heat and noise we see today is an expression of weakness rather than strength. The most noisy fundamentalists of any religious stripe are those whose god is weak, where the battle between good and evil is really in the balance and a few scribbles in a foreign newspaper might make a difference.
Here is an excellent article giving the timeline and throwing some light as to who the winners and losers are in the current fuss.
posted by grahamwell at 10:48 AM on February 6, 2006
Oh yeah? It's an interesting argument, but it hangs on this phrase and I'd be interested if you'd flesh it out a bit. Many people have puzzled over why the Islamic world became 'stuck in its ways' after a glorious beginning (a beginning which also coincided with its greatest intensity and purity).
Perhaps a more promising line is that the furious heat and noise we see today is an expression of weakness rather than strength. The most noisy fundamentalists of any religious stripe are those whose god is weak, where the battle between good and evil is really in the balance and a few scribbles in a foreign newspaper might make a difference.
Here is an excellent article giving the timeline and throwing some light as to who the winners and losers are in the current fuss.
posted by grahamwell at 10:48 AM on February 6, 2006
You’re the Dane now, dog!
Sorry if I have a hard time taking this guy seriously.
mediareport said almost everything I was thinking.
I will add that this piece is certainly seductive. In some senses we want to let it play to stereotype. I don’t accept the whole ideological war schtick though. It’s self-defeating. If you truly believe in free expression, then you cannot attack someone who doesn’t.
This is not to say you can’t throw them in jail for burning stuff down, etc.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:04 AM on February 6, 2006
Sorry if I have a hard time taking this guy seriously.
mediareport said almost everything I was thinking.
I will add that this piece is certainly seductive. In some senses we want to let it play to stereotype. I don’t accept the whole ideological war schtick though. It’s self-defeating. If you truly believe in free expression, then you cannot attack someone who doesn’t.
This is not to say you can’t throw them in jail for burning stuff down, etc.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:04 AM on February 6, 2006
Some factors that have not been mentioned yet.
1: We are still living in a post-colonial era. The world economy is shaped by a long-standing political system designed around a few economic superpower blocks exploiting the labor and natural resources of the rest of the world.
2: Throughout the second half of the 20th century, the U.S. supported autocratic dictators against even moderate democratic reform efforts. This left little room for a reasonable middle ground.
3: The slow decline and fall of the Soviet Union has left a large ideological vacum.
4: Radical Islamic terrorists don't have a policy wonks like Eliot Abrams and John Negroponte in the administration to claim that reports of their acts are not credible.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:26 AM on February 6, 2006
1: We are still living in a post-colonial era. The world economy is shaped by a long-standing political system designed around a few economic superpower blocks exploiting the labor and natural resources of the rest of the world.
2: Throughout the second half of the 20th century, the U.S. supported autocratic dictators against even moderate democratic reform efforts. This left little room for a reasonable middle ground.
3: The slow decline and fall of the Soviet Union has left a large ideological vacum.
4: Radical Islamic terrorists don't have a policy wonks like Eliot Abrams and John Negroponte in the administration to claim that reports of their acts are not credible.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:26 AM on February 6, 2006
"uh, Bligh, Rothko appears to merely be attempting to refute your argument that christianity is somehow not still in a violent, radical, xenophobic phase."
Oh. Well, I apologize to Rothko, then. Both of us, I think, are so used to being personally attacked by the other, it's hard not to read something like that as being another example of it. I can see now that it wasn't. I really didn't like being compared to Boykin, as I thought Rothko was.
I certainly agree that in the US, the Christians are entering a more intolerant, violent, and hateful phase. I don't think it's that comparable to the general nature of Islam in some important places.
This whole thing, I think, supports my main argument: although of course Islam has always been arab-centric, in the not-distant past it was more tolerant, more cosmopolitan, much more influenced by non-arab European culture. This brouhaha has been orchestrated by the Saudis who are, both in their culture, the royal family, the imams, and even and particularly in the radical conservative movement that is the enemy of the status quo, intolerant and hateful and reactionary. The establishment in Saudi Arabia is deeply conservative, and deeply intolerant, but its opposition is radically conservative and radically intolerant. The epicenter of the tenor of the Ilamic world is right in the heart of the Middle East where it had been a century ago Islamabad.
"Perhaps a more promising line is that the furious heat and noise we see today is an expression of weakness rather than strength."
I believe that is the case both with regard to the Islamic world, and to Christianity in the US. In terms of the conservative cultural values that are closely related to religious doctrine, in both cases conservative cultural values are in the larger context on the wane. Cultural conservatives are on the defensive, they feel deeply threatened, and this pushes them to radicalism and seperatism.
"I don't believe mature religions have 'phases'. The populations that adopt them do, and some middle eastern, islamic populations are going through violent, radical and xenophobic phases for many different and complicated reasons. This is the problem with terms like 'islamofascist'. Look to the people, not the religion."
I acknowledge the partial correctness of this point, but do not fully agree with it. I think that cultures, which are of course made up of large groups of people, are partly defined by, and partly define, the religious beliefs of the majority. I don't think it makes sense to completely divorce the religious belief system from the cultural values and declare the religion to be neutral and independent. It isn't. Talking about "Islam" is not only a convenient way to talk about a general population, it is to a limited sense quite meaningful in its generalization of a population.
However, talking this way is dangerous and misleading in a milleau dominated by ignorance. I'm well aware of the diversity of the various Islamic traditions, and the diversity of cultures which embrace Islam. But my argument is that in a cosmopolitan world, which Europe and the Middle East has been for a long time, at different times different traditions and different cultures tend to dominate that part of the cultures that embrace a particular belief system. We know this is true, we can clearly see it in the case of Christianity over two millenia.
"1: We are still living in a post-colonial era. The world economy is shaped by a long-standing political system designed around a few economic superpower blocks exploiting the labor and natural resources of the rest of the world.
2: Throughout the second half of the 20th century, the U.S. supported autocratic dictators against even moderate democratic reform efforts. This left little room for a reasonable middle ground."
These are the two deeper reasons for why the cultures/nations which dominate Islam are moving in the directions they are moving and why they are like they are in the first place.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:55 AM on February 6, 2006
Oh. Well, I apologize to Rothko, then. Both of us, I think, are so used to being personally attacked by the other, it's hard not to read something like that as being another example of it. I can see now that it wasn't. I really didn't like being compared to Boykin, as I thought Rothko was.
I certainly agree that in the US, the Christians are entering a more intolerant, violent, and hateful phase. I don't think it's that comparable to the general nature of Islam in some important places.
This whole thing, I think, supports my main argument: although of course Islam has always been arab-centric, in the not-distant past it was more tolerant, more cosmopolitan, much more influenced by non-arab European culture. This brouhaha has been orchestrated by the Saudis who are, both in their culture, the royal family, the imams, and even and particularly in the radical conservative movement that is the enemy of the status quo, intolerant and hateful and reactionary. The establishment in Saudi Arabia is deeply conservative, and deeply intolerant, but its opposition is radically conservative and radically intolerant. The epicenter of the tenor of the Ilamic world is right in the heart of the Middle East where it had been a century ago Islamabad.
"Perhaps a more promising line is that the furious heat and noise we see today is an expression of weakness rather than strength."
I believe that is the case both with regard to the Islamic world, and to Christianity in the US. In terms of the conservative cultural values that are closely related to religious doctrine, in both cases conservative cultural values are in the larger context on the wane. Cultural conservatives are on the defensive, they feel deeply threatened, and this pushes them to radicalism and seperatism.
"I don't believe mature religions have 'phases'. The populations that adopt them do, and some middle eastern, islamic populations are going through violent, radical and xenophobic phases for many different and complicated reasons. This is the problem with terms like 'islamofascist'. Look to the people, not the religion."
I acknowledge the partial correctness of this point, but do not fully agree with it. I think that cultures, which are of course made up of large groups of people, are partly defined by, and partly define, the religious beliefs of the majority. I don't think it makes sense to completely divorce the religious belief system from the cultural values and declare the religion to be neutral and independent. It isn't. Talking about "Islam" is not only a convenient way to talk about a general population, it is to a limited sense quite meaningful in its generalization of a population.
However, talking this way is dangerous and misleading in a milleau dominated by ignorance. I'm well aware of the diversity of the various Islamic traditions, and the diversity of cultures which embrace Islam. But my argument is that in a cosmopolitan world, which Europe and the Middle East has been for a long time, at different times different traditions and different cultures tend to dominate that part of the cultures that embrace a particular belief system. We know this is true, we can clearly see it in the case of Christianity over two millenia.
"1: We are still living in a post-colonial era. The world economy is shaped by a long-standing political system designed around a few economic superpower blocks exploiting the labor and natural resources of the rest of the world.
2: Throughout the second half of the 20th century, the U.S. supported autocratic dictators against even moderate democratic reform efforts. This left little room for a reasonable middle ground."
These are the two deeper reasons for why the cultures/nations which dominate Islam are moving in the directions they are moving and why they are like they are in the first place.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:55 AM on February 6, 2006
Even though it was appropriate for you to apologize for calling me a "fuckwit", you should still have been given a timeout by the administrators. This is done when other people behave as you have, so I really don't understand why you have once again been given special recompense. It's unfortunate that you can behave however you please, but apology accepted.
posted by Rothko at 12:27 PM on February 6, 2006
posted by Rothko at 12:27 PM on February 6, 2006
Quite being a drama queen and asshololic fuckwit, Rothko.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:59 PM on February 6, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 12:59 PM on February 6, 2006
Back in the day, you knew a thread was over when everybody started trading giddy ridiculous one-liners. Now the signal is pointless vendettas. I am old and sad now.
posted by furiousthought at 1:06 PM on February 6, 2006
posted by furiousthought at 1:06 PM on February 6, 2006
Maybe the Rothko Gazette and the Ethereal Bligh Herald should publish offensive cartoons about each other.
I guess we know who'll be frothing at the mouth.
posted by Rothko at 1:22 PM on February 6, 2006
I guess we know who'll be frothing at the mouth.
posted by Rothko at 1:22 PM on February 6, 2006
rothko seriously no one cares why do you do this
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:30 PM on February 6, 2006
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:30 PM on February 6, 2006
OC, I'm curious why Ethereal Bligh and five fresh fish were not given timeouts for doing the very same thing that gets someone else a well-deserved timeout.
posted by Rothko at 1:44 PM on February 6, 2006
posted by Rothko at 1:44 PM on February 6, 2006
Trey, for someone so concerned about this thread, your insults are pretty much your only contribution here.
posted by Rothko at 1:49 PM on February 6, 2006
posted by Rothko at 1:49 PM on February 6, 2006
in the US, the Christians...
The Christians in the US have nothing whatsoever to do with this Mohammed cartoons story.
In fact, the US has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Is it so, so difficult to accept that?
posted by funambulist at 1:53 PM on February 6, 2006
The Christians in the US have nothing whatsoever to do with this Mohammed cartoons story.
In fact, the US has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Is it so, so difficult to accept that?
posted by funambulist at 1:53 PM on February 6, 2006
OC, I'm curious why Ethereal Bligh and five fresh fish were not given timeouts for doing the very same thing that gets someone else a well-deserved timeout.
posted by Rothko at 1:44 PM PST on February 6
This is not MetaTalk.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:54 PM on February 6, 2006
posted by Rothko at 1:44 PM PST on February 6
This is not MetaTalk.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:54 PM on February 6, 2006
Perhaps not, but that doesn't apparently stop other people.
posted by Rothko at 2:00 PM on February 6, 2006
posted by Rothko at 2:00 PM on February 6, 2006
Nah, I usually go to Metatalk, but threads get deleted or closed there. I'd prefer Keith's comment and quotes of it to stay on the record.
posted by Rothko at 2:15 PM on February 6, 2006
posted by Rothko at 2:15 PM on February 6, 2006
the record sounds broken.
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:59 PM on February 6, 2006
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:59 PM on February 6, 2006
It ain't over until the fat lady sings.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:58 PM on February 6, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 3:58 PM on February 6, 2006
I just got the urge to get a "fat lady singing" sockpuppet. That could be useful.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:06 PM on February 6, 2006
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:06 PM on February 6, 2006
makrel i tomatsovs
posted by AwkwardPause at 9:06 PM on February 6, 2006
posted by AwkwardPause at 9:06 PM on February 6, 2006
Sigh. We Liberals really risk being on the wrong side of this issue. My bottom line: The paper ran the cartoons to protest the threat of militant Islam to free speech, and, not surprisingly, militant Muslims reacted violently. They have a right to be offended, protest peacefully, or write a scathing editorial. But as soon as they start using violence to shut anyone up, they cross the line. I say f--k 'em.
posted by Toecutter at 9:33 PM on February 6, 2006
posted by Toecutter at 9:33 PM on February 6, 2006
I'm an Iranian atheist, and I have more grievances against Islam than Christianity or Judaism, but I've noticed than in some (although obviously not all) rants against Muslims, radical or otherwise, the ranter is actually wailing against Middle Easterns in general (Israelis excepted). "Arabs" or "Iranians" can usually be substituted for "Muslims" in their rants. That's why I don't usually run off at the mouth in these threads to condemn the Muslim fundies who I hate with a passion (after all these people hijacked the revolution and ruined my homeland).
We get comments like these:
I think the simple fact that a bunch of people in these countries would be able, in the open and in clear daylight, to burn down embassies says something important about both the people and their societies.
Sorry funambulist, but it's hard not to bring up America, Americans (I hate the term "USians"), and the Bush administration when responding to comments such as the one above. The oft cited abortion clinic bombers do the same thing in the US, but you don't see me making a value judgment about Americans in general based on their behavior. If anything, Americans bear more responsibility for their country's actions because this is supposedly a democracy, unlike Saudi Arabia and Iran etc. The fact that the majority of Americans voted for a callous murderous liar says something important about both the American people and their society then? That would be an insult to just under 50% of Americans. The people who rioted and burned down embassies are a fraction of one percent of the population of their countries.
posted by Devils Slide at 12:29 AM on February 7, 2006
We get comments like these:
I think the simple fact that a bunch of people in these countries would be able, in the open and in clear daylight, to burn down embassies says something important about both the people and their societies.
Sorry funambulist, but it's hard not to bring up America, Americans (I hate the term "USians"), and the Bush administration when responding to comments such as the one above. The oft cited abortion clinic bombers do the same thing in the US, but you don't see me making a value judgment about Americans in general based on their behavior. If anything, Americans bear more responsibility for their country's actions because this is supposedly a democracy, unlike Saudi Arabia and Iran etc. The fact that the majority of Americans voted for a callous murderous liar says something important about both the American people and their society then? That would be an insult to just under 50% of Americans. The people who rioted and burned down embassies are a fraction of one percent of the population of their countries.
posted by Devils Slide at 12:29 AM on February 7, 2006
*railing...but wailing works too.
posted by Devils Slide at 1:02 AM on February 7, 2006
posted by Devils Slide at 1:02 AM on February 7, 2006
Sorry funambulist, but it's hard not to bring up America, Americans (I hate the term "USians"), and the Bush administration when responding to comments such as the one above.
Devils Slide, I *do* understand that's hard for you -- because you do live in the US!
I don't! And, more importantly, neither do the Danes, the Europeans, including Danish and European Muslims; and neither do the governments of Saudi, Egypt, Iran, etc., or the rioters in Syria, Beyruth, Pakistan, etc. or the rest of the population who are now being represented, willy-nilly, by those rioters and extremists and conniving governments, who just love this opportunity to prove themseves more-Islamic-than-thou to try and assuage their religious extremists and deflect their rage outside.
So, in regard to this particular issue, pardon my French, but I just don't give a fuck about the US abortion clinic bombers.
I hope you'll forgive me for applying a bit of parochialism myself, or maybe just an observation of a fact, but they're your problem, the US citizens problem, not mine, not to Europeans. I don't see them burning down my embassy or demanding apologies from my government. They have nothing to do with this issue.
And personally I am not making any generalisations about Muslims or Arabs or Pakistanis and so on. I am well aware of the fact it's radicals. Problem is, like you say, exactly, the radicals have the power to ruin entire countries, no matter how much of a percentage of the population they are. Because, especially in countries who have repressive regimes, the rest of the population doesn't have the power to keep them in check. (Hell, if I was living in Iran, I'd want to get by quietly myself, or leave! I wouldn't be ready to defy the nutters when the price is my life and there'd be no significant political organisation to support and defend me.)
If anything, the US involvement in this is the decades-old responsibilities in contributing to the resurgence of religious extremism by using it for their own strategical interests.
So, to conclude: I don't care if the right wing and racists, in the US and Europe (though the European far right groups are largely quiet on this for now, guess why) are making generalisations and exploiting this problem to their own ends. It doesn't make it less of a problem -- for Europe, for European Muslims, and for the ME and Arab countries involved.
So I very much appreciate people from the US who do understand that, without having to reduce the whole thing to a comparison to US politics. (Note again: general rant, not directed at you. I largely agree with what you're saying, but the focus here is really different.).
posted by funambulist at 1:05 AM on February 7, 2006
Devils Slide, I *do* understand that's hard for you -- because you do live in the US!
I don't! And, more importantly, neither do the Danes, the Europeans, including Danish and European Muslims; and neither do the governments of Saudi, Egypt, Iran, etc., or the rioters in Syria, Beyruth, Pakistan, etc. or the rest of the population who are now being represented, willy-nilly, by those rioters and extremists and conniving governments, who just love this opportunity to prove themseves more-Islamic-than-thou to try and assuage their religious extremists and deflect their rage outside.
So, in regard to this particular issue, pardon my French, but I just don't give a fuck about the US abortion clinic bombers.
I hope you'll forgive me for applying a bit of parochialism myself, or maybe just an observation of a fact, but they're your problem, the US citizens problem, not mine, not to Europeans. I don't see them burning down my embassy or demanding apologies from my government. They have nothing to do with this issue.
And personally I am not making any generalisations about Muslims or Arabs or Pakistanis and so on. I am well aware of the fact it's radicals. Problem is, like you say, exactly, the radicals have the power to ruin entire countries, no matter how much of a percentage of the population they are. Because, especially in countries who have repressive regimes, the rest of the population doesn't have the power to keep them in check. (Hell, if I was living in Iran, I'd want to get by quietly myself, or leave! I wouldn't be ready to defy the nutters when the price is my life and there'd be no significant political organisation to support and defend me.)
If anything, the US involvement in this is the decades-old responsibilities in contributing to the resurgence of religious extremism by using it for their own strategical interests.
So, to conclude: I don't care if the right wing and racists, in the US and Europe (though the European far right groups are largely quiet on this for now, guess why) are making generalisations and exploiting this problem to their own ends. It doesn't make it less of a problem -- for Europe, for European Muslims, and for the ME and Arab countries involved.
So I very much appreciate people from the US who do understand that, without having to reduce the whole thing to a comparison to US politics. (Note again: general rant, not directed at you. I largely agree with what you're saying, but the focus here is really different.).
posted by funambulist at 1:05 AM on February 7, 2006
Paraphrase of British Mullah on NPR on Monday night:
"How dare you insult the blessed prophet! To imply he is violent with your filthy scratchings is vile! The prophet is the center of all love and wisdom and there is not a violent bone in all the body of the teachings of all blessed Islam! We demand justice.
And until you hand over the infidels responsible for this cartoon so they may be judged and executed, we shall burn down your embassies, businesses, and schools!"
Or something to that effect.
Irony, Islam. Islam, Irony.
posted by tkchrist at 11:48 AM on February 7, 2006
"How dare you insult the blessed prophet! To imply he is violent with your filthy scratchings is vile! The prophet is the center of all love and wisdom and there is not a violent bone in all the body of the teachings of all blessed Islam! We demand justice.
And until you hand over the infidels responsible for this cartoon so they may be judged and executed, we shall burn down your embassies, businesses, and schools!"
Or something to that effect.
Irony, Islam. Islam, Irony.
posted by tkchrist at 11:48 AM on February 7, 2006
An Iranian newspaper is soliciting comics that are derogatory to Jews.
Alas, there has not been a more or less unified "meh" from the Western democracies. Ideally, a bunch of Euro and America newspapers would have agreed that, sure, they'd run the cartoons. Just to prove that (a) they're not afraid to offend anyone and (b) everyone else that they offend doesn't start torching embassies.
An excellent teaching opportunity, lost.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:31 AM on February 8, 2006
Alas, there has not been a more or less unified "meh" from the Western democracies. Ideally, a bunch of Euro and America newspapers would have agreed that, sure, they'd run the cartoons. Just to prove that (a) they're not afraid to offend anyone and (b) everyone else that they offend doesn't start torching embassies.
An excellent teaching opportunity, lost.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:31 AM on February 8, 2006
five fresh fish, you're actually suggesting it would have been preferable if European papers took up that moronic 'challenge' from a newpspaper in Iran, one of the world's most repressive theocracies?
European papers need to prove anyting to... Iran?
The unified "meh" is the only significant response.
posted by funambulist at 1:42 AM on February 8, 2006
European papers need to prove anyting to... Iran?
The unified "meh" is the only significant response.
posted by funambulist at 1:42 AM on February 8, 2006
Yes, I'm actually suggesting that.
It would prove, for one thing, that editorial cartoons are an equal-opportunity offensive media.
It would also prove that sane people do not destroy things when a lame editorial cartoon offends them.
It would also indicate that the media isn't Jew-controlled or, at least, that those Jews controlling it aren't afraid of editorial cartoons.
I think these are all important lessons for those who got so riled up about the cartoons.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:31 PM on February 8, 2006
It would prove, for one thing, that editorial cartoons are an equal-opportunity offensive media.
It would also prove that sane people do not destroy things when a lame editorial cartoon offends them.
It would also indicate that the media isn't Jew-controlled or, at least, that those Jews controlling it aren't afraid of editorial cartoons.
I think these are all important lessons for those who got so riled up about the cartoons.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:31 PM on February 8, 2006
Ok, I understand what you mean, but really, I think the notion that there is a need to prove to a fiercely Jew-hating dictatorial regime (and the media they control) that the media in Europe isn't controlled by THE JEWS means accepting much, much lower standards of discourse than any respectable media should.
Editorial cartoons are already an equal opportunity offensive media and have always been. They don't need to take their cues from Iran for that.
Those extremists who get riled up about the cartoons are beyond reaching. It's not to the extremists that we should be talking to or offering proof of respect. That's legitimizing their role as sole spokespeople of all Muslims, which is exactly what they want. They're not, they're just better organised.
posted by funambulist at 5:22 AM on February 9, 2006
Editorial cartoons are already an equal opportunity offensive media and have always been. They don't need to take their cues from Iran for that.
Those extremists who get riled up about the cartoons are beyond reaching. It's not to the extremists that we should be talking to or offering proof of respect. That's legitimizing their role as sole spokespeople of all Muslims, which is exactly what they want. They're not, they're just better organised.
posted by funambulist at 5:22 AM on February 9, 2006
Better organised and, IMO, probably being deeply influenced by Western agencies with an interest in destabilizing the region.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:36 AM on February 9, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 9:36 AM on February 9, 2006
Like, the Jews! :)
Nah I don't see which Denmark-hating Western agencies would be interested in fomenting this sort of shit. It can't be the EU. If it's the Bushco, then, by Allah, their ways are more mysterious than I ever imagined.
Looks like the bigger interest is more from those Arab regimes who love it when all that fanatic protesting energy is directed elsewhere.
posted by funambulist at 10:04 AM on February 9, 2006
Nah I don't see which Denmark-hating Western agencies would be interested in fomenting this sort of shit. It can't be the EU. If it's the Bushco, then, by Allah, their ways are more mysterious than I ever imagined.
Looks like the bigger interest is more from those Arab regimes who love it when all that fanatic protesting energy is directed elsewhere.
posted by funambulist at 10:04 AM on February 9, 2006
Wise words from Doonesbury:
Q: Are you going to make a cartoon response to the plight of your fellow cartoonists in Denmark who are now in hiding, in fear for their lives? Will you be making any sort of public statement?
- - Larry, Santa Rosa, CA
A: This issue may or may not prove to be something GBT addresses in the strip itself, as he did when the fatwa was declared against Salman Rushdie. However, we're happy to share with readers his recent comments to the San Francisco Chronicle:
What do you think of the State Department's statement, essentially condemning the publication of the cartoons in European newspapers?
A concession to reality. It's the State Department. What is the U.S. supposed to say -- that it approves of cartoons that set off demonstrations around the world? Just how much more hated in the Muslim world do we need to be?
Why has the U.S. news media (broadcast and print), almost universally refused to publish the cartoons?
I assume because they believe, correctly, it is unnecessarily inflammatory. It's legal to run them, but is it wise? The Danish editor who started all this actually recruited cartoonists to draw offensive cartoons (some of those he invited declined). And why did he do it? To demonstrate that in a Western liberal society he could. Well, we already knew that. Some victory for freedom of expression. An editor who deliberately sets out to provoke or hurt people because he's worried about "self-censorship" is not an editor I'd care to work for.
Will you be including any images of the Prophet Muhammad in upcoming cartoons?
No. Nor will I be using any imagery that mocks Jesus Christ.
What do you think of the Joint Chiefs issuing a protest to The Washington Post over the cartoon of the U.S. soldier/amputee returning from Iraq?
Well, it was a literal reading on their part. Toles wasn't mocking wounded soldiers -- he was just using a strong metaphor. I thought it was an effective cartoon, but the blowback was understandable, and I'm sure Tom was ready for it.
Is there an echo?
If you mean a personal echo, not really. I have 600 client editors, and I don't for a moment expect them all on any given day to judge my work suitable for their wildly different audiences. We have editors for a reason. Just because a society has almost unlimited freedom of expression doesn't mean we should ever stop thinking about its consequences in the real world. If The New York Times had commissioned a dozen vicious, anti-Semitic cartoons, would we be having a comparable debate? I don't think so.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:50 AM on February 16, 2006
Q: Are you going to make a cartoon response to the plight of your fellow cartoonists in Denmark who are now in hiding, in fear for their lives? Will you be making any sort of public statement?
- - Larry, Santa Rosa, CA
A: This issue may or may not prove to be something GBT addresses in the strip itself, as he did when the fatwa was declared against Salman Rushdie. However, we're happy to share with readers his recent comments to the San Francisco Chronicle:
What do you think of the State Department's statement, essentially condemning the publication of the cartoons in European newspapers?
A concession to reality. It's the State Department. What is the U.S. supposed to say -- that it approves of cartoons that set off demonstrations around the world? Just how much more hated in the Muslim world do we need to be?
Why has the U.S. news media (broadcast and print), almost universally refused to publish the cartoons?
I assume because they believe, correctly, it is unnecessarily inflammatory. It's legal to run them, but is it wise? The Danish editor who started all this actually recruited cartoonists to draw offensive cartoons (some of those he invited declined). And why did he do it? To demonstrate that in a Western liberal society he could. Well, we already knew that. Some victory for freedom of expression. An editor who deliberately sets out to provoke or hurt people because he's worried about "self-censorship" is not an editor I'd care to work for.
Will you be including any images of the Prophet Muhammad in upcoming cartoons?
No. Nor will I be using any imagery that mocks Jesus Christ.
What do you think of the Joint Chiefs issuing a protest to The Washington Post over the cartoon of the U.S. soldier/amputee returning from Iraq?
Well, it was a literal reading on their part. Toles wasn't mocking wounded soldiers -- he was just using a strong metaphor. I thought it was an effective cartoon, but the blowback was understandable, and I'm sure Tom was ready for it.
Is there an echo?
If you mean a personal echo, not really. I have 600 client editors, and I don't for a moment expect them all on any given day to judge my work suitable for their wildly different audiences. We have editors for a reason. Just because a society has almost unlimited freedom of expression doesn't mean we should ever stop thinking about its consequences in the real world. If The New York Times had commissioned a dozen vicious, anti-Semitic cartoons, would we be having a comparable debate? I don't think so.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:50 AM on February 16, 2006
« Older Signs of the Times?? | Klayworld Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Brockstar at 4:33 PM on February 5, 2006