Tiger's Eye

I think that it would be extremely difficult to avoid the subject of religion in a western civilization class, especially when part of the course is going over culture and philosophy of specific time periods. It seems a bit ridiculous that college students should go to this extreme and fire a teacher over his opinion. I would expect a little more from students, and teachers as well, especially in an academic setting. Sure, one might get his feathers ruffled up upon hearing something that he doesn't like or that contradicts his beliefs, but again, an academic institution is supposed to be a place of debate.

I had this one class that studied the history of the arab middle east. In this class, you HAD to discuss religion, because it was such a defining factor in history and culture. The teacher was, for lack of better terms, a smart ass: extremely intelligent and he used this to his advantage, at the expense of our feelings, to an extent. He didn't hesitate to put you on the spot and make you look like an idiot. But he challenged your thinking. He used hard and blunt methods to make us understand. And we learned. Sure, he would bash us, say that the majority "of you white kids don't appreciate what the Qur'an means to the Muslims" and the list goes on. Now don't anybody go jumping at the 'white kid' comment. None of us did, so I don't see why you guys should. Actually, we found it very amusing, considering that about 60% of the class were ROTC, lol. But again, we didn't try to get him fired because he allegedly made racist comments or made certain statements about our religions that we didn't agree with, because this was an academic setting. People should be able to say what they think, and if we think that they are mistaken, then talk about it. Dialogue and debate: this is what university should be about, not about catering to the students just because they feel a little uncomfortable.

I also find it surprising that the college was so quick to dismiss him. I wonder how far they actually looked into this.

The issue isn't so much what she was wearing. I think all of us here would agree that it's a stupid thing to go into an airport wearing a wired up sweatshirt with a battery, but the issue is how the security personnel reacted. All of this control and zero tolerance in the name of public safety just smells wrong.

 

If you read the first article linked in the OP, you'll see that the authorities were stating just "how lucky she is" that they didn't put a bullet in her skull.

 

Really? Has the baggage claim area become that much of a war zone that we need to shoot people? You'd better not flip someone off in the Starbucks line or your ass could get tazered.

 

There's a lot of tense people at the airport counters, people late for planes, headed to stressful meetings, light on sleep and food... who are all already in bad moods. Are they lucky too that they didn't get bullets in their skull? At what point have we gone too far? At what point do we realize that we're headed in the wrong direction and change course?

 

Of course the security personnel at airports have a tough job. Of course not all of them know what is and is not a bomb. This is part of the problem.

 

However, to escalate so quickly from "that's pretty strange, we should go check it out" all the way to "you're lucky we didn't put a bullet in your skull" seems to skip a few intelligent steps, and illustrates just how far the "force in the name of protection" has already gone.

 

I want to be safe. I want others to be safe. I think this can be done more intelligently than we do now.

 

 

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Ya, the fact that they were stating that "she was lucky" bugs me as well. It seems like they're trying to tell her that SHE was wrong and that nothing on their part was stupid or a mistake. That's not really fair, but then again, I'm not a huge fan of airport security, granted that their job is hard. Going through airports is difficult nowadays, and though I understand it is for safety, I still think that people are overly paranoid. As some people have already said, you would think that terrorists would attempt to be more subtle about their missions. I would imagine that half the point of a terrorist attack is the element of surprise: to shock people into fear, so that they become submissive. No sense in waving a banner so that people would take you out right away.

I travel a lot, and I don't think that I exaggerate when I say that security is a little high-strung. One security lady started freaking out and wouldn't let my mom pass through because she had documentation that looked foreign to her (it was a visa). She got so caught up in how 'strange' (and somehow suspicious) it looked, that she failed to notice that the document specifically said it was approved by the US government (she had to call over another guard...). Another time, I met a guy on one of my flights into O'Hare airport: he was Indian, spoke english with a very heavy accent, and was somewhat mousy and kept to himself. It was the first time he had travelled anywhere outside of India, so he was rather lost. We got to talking, and when we were going through security, the guard looked at this passport, and ushered him to another security checkpoint, away from where the rest of us, and they kept him there for about ten minutes. He came out looking slightly frazzled, since they basically rummaged through his messenger bag very thoroughly, as well as his clothes. They prolly thought he had too many pockets It makes me wonder what 'suspicious/suspicious behaviour' is defined as.

I agree with iNow. Sure, it was stupid to go into a Boston airport out of all places with a wired up sweatshirt, but was it necessary to threaten her with guns? Something seems a little screwey here. I guess no one is innocent now. It's now "guilty until proven innocent". Fine, maybe not quite that extreme, but leaning towards there. With situations like this, why aren't airports coming down on bringing in iPod, computers, and cellphones?

I'm not against the fact that they checked her out; they probably should have. I just am a bit unsettled that they jumped the gun, quite literally at that.

Ah, I was in 8th grade, and I had just gotten home from school. My mom ushered my sisters and I up to the 8th floor (we lived in an apartment building) and basically sat in front of our neighbor's TV for the next few hours (we didn't have cable). So ya...

I think you are probably right. In fact' date=' some of her friends might wonder why I rarely say anything around them. While I try to have a friendly conversation with them, I often don't know how to contribute to the conversation. What can I say when they spend 99% of the time talking about their boyfriends? I definitely do not want a boyfriend, and I've never had a girlfriend, so I really can't contribute much to a conversation about relationships. Now that you mention it, it would make sense why she might not say much to me around her friends. Anything I would want to talk about would probably seem boring or confusing to her friends.

 

Usually her friends said stuff like, "My boyfriend and I are so happy! We must be the happiest couple in the world! We are going to be together forever!" Now, what could I say to something like that? The only thing I could say would be "Yeah... We'll see how happy you are in a few months. When you come to lunch crying, I'll be the one laughing!"

 

Wow, that was a little mean. It's after 1:00 am and I better go to bed because I'm starting to sound like a cranky old man. [/quote']

 

ROFL!! It's okay, herme3. I know EXACTLY what you mean Those are some intellectual conversations there, no? Ya, so intellectual that I have to move away cuz my IQ goes down a couple of points when I'm around! *sigh* ok, I'm being mean, too Oh well, what can I say? Don't worry. I hardly understand the majority of the female population. Sorry to all my fellow gals LOL.

Hullo, herme3 & co.

Been reading this thread for some time now, and I'm not entirely sure how to address it. It's...complicated, if I may say so. I guess that is just to say the least But anyways, it would make sense to address the most recent stuff, so I guess I'll just do that. *ahem* Graduation....hmm...an event that comes to the mind with several mixed feelings. It's an exciting, nerve-wracking, and heart-aching event all at the same time. After spending several happy years at my school, graduation was the big red flag that told me that the dreaded moving period was approaching very quickly. And it did. I'm currently still coming to grips with this fact, and even now I don't seem to realize that I won't be going back to high school again. My present that was build upon routines of waking up every morning, going to school and greeting people is now somewhere in the past, and it's time to move on. Again, a very difficult time of transition that is difficult to come to terms with. Okay, sorry. I'm just rambling on about what's going on in my life now when I should be addressing yours

Well, herme3, honestly...I don't think that a friendship should be this hard to figure out. I dunno, I think that perhaps you're making too much of a big deal out of it. Is it trying to hard? I'm not sure. What I mean is, you talk about this wonderful girl being your best friend, and how you want things to remain that way so badly. It's pretty obvious that you care about where this relationship turns by posting your issue on this forum. But I honestly dunno how much of a help we're being And besides, you're going about planning your next moves and stuff. How to act around her, what to do, etc. You're discussing this with other people who perhaps don't truly understand what type of friendship you two have, thus making it difficult for all of us to give you good advice. If you should discuss this with anyone, it should be someone who knows both of you. Rewinding things a bit, I find something odd about planning everything, technicalities and stuff when it comes to this girl. Eventually, u start to care too much about what she thinks of you and you only try to please her. You a call her your only friend, so what does this amount to? Is she your only friend just because you please her? Well, that's not too happy. If we all worried about what people thought about us, that we'd be too occupied to truly enjoy a friendship that we believe to be there. Don't try to please people; you end up trying to be like everyone one else, and in the end, you are no more unique than they are, which is boring. Also, you may become disappointed with yourself.

I grew up moving more often than I liked, encountering people of several different beliefs, ethnicities and backgrounds, and so it was difficult to establish strong friendships of trust, much less happiness. On top of that, I was way shy, and that always left me in the dust. My idea of friends was only having someone with whom I could eat lunch with, and after that, the days consisted of only following them around, pleasing them, and doing as they asked. Basically, I pleased people because I was afraid that they wouldn't like me otherwise. I think I developed a little insecurity after that, due to lack of confidence. I hated being alone, yet I've had to deal with it, as a result of my shyness and way too many language barriers to adjust to. All in all, my life was about schoolwork and what people profiled me as. After a while, i realized that this life was the pits, and so I tried to take things a little step further: i tried to get over my shyness my talking. It didn't matter to whom or what I said, and fortunately, it all went uphill from there. I guess that somewhere in the eleventh grade, I said "oh screw" to what people thought about me, and I found myself laughing more and feeling very happy. Personally, I don't care what people think about me anymore, and I've been told more than once how people think that I'm rather "weird", "abnormal", etc. But you know what? I happen to like my uniqueness and who I am, and I've many friends who feel the same way, who are also equally considered "abnormal" This year in particular, school has been very trying, and my fellow classmates and I found ourselves required to make some pretty difficult decisions where we were pretty divided among ourselves. It was a time during which we really had to establish who we are, and there was no time to go around pleasing people. It wasn't always fun, but it happened. Ugh, rambling about myself again, moving on...

Going back to pleasing this girl, I can just tell you to not try to fit in with her popular friends. Just be who you are. If she really likes you as a friend, then she can care less whether you are weird, or a loser, or whatever. You can say the most random thing or send a letter and she would just laugh it off easily. I think that's the most priceless thing about friendship: you don't have to be so careful about who you are, cuz you're free to be yourself. Of course, you have to mind the huge trust factor that is involved, but that's besides the point It's difficult to be alone, but I guess sometimes that is an obstacle that comes along when finding true friends (I can count all my good friends on one hand Maybe two, if I'm lucky).

Just as a last thought, in addressing to the event of girls freaking out when being asked out by a guy, I plead guilty I have to admit, at those particular moments, I felt like booking out. It's a strange feeling, but it happens. I think i could describe it as fear. Of what? I still am not sure. Rejection? Not likely, since I'm being the one asked, not the one asking. Expectations? I think that is the most likely. I don't like having people set expectations for me, and I don't want to have to fulfill them. So i mean, afterwards, u end up avoiding the guy concerned, and have the sign "GO AWAY AND LEAVE ME ALONE" on your forehead. But I guess I'm gettinf over those defense mechanisms. Otherwise, I'm not too interested in having a boyfriend. I think that there is something great about a casual friendship that would be lost if involved in a relationship. But again, I wouldn't know, having never been in one But yeah, there's one explanation as to why girls freak out at being asked out, though it's just according to me.

Another, I don't think that she forgets that u're a guy. She's just so comfortable talking to you that she just doesn't CARE.

All in all, don't spend your time trying to get her to like you even more; be yourself. Just try to preserve what you have, and maintain it. Long distance friendships are tough burdens to bear, but the ones that matter will last for quite some time. Well, if the effort is put into it, that is Be a good friend to her. That's the most that you can do, and perhaps the only thing that you really have to do. Send the occasional letter checking up on her; send a birthday card, anything to let her know that you haven't forgotten her and that you miss her. She will most likely get the message There can almost be nothing more risky, more challenging, or more memorable than a good friendship. Cherish what u have, and give urself a bit more credit. We'll see what happens, eh?

Best of luck,

Tiger

P.S. Sorry, i know this probly won't make a lot of sense the first time I was just writing.'

P.P.S. Ugh, long post. Apologize for that, too. Hope you can get SOMETHING out of it, herme3

I apologize' date=' I thought you were Muslim.

While I was on an exchange to Turkey, I had interesting discussions with Muslim friends about modesty. I do believe that one of the reasons cited for covering the female body is modesty (Kind of a side note, but a Muslim friend of mine believed that modesty came from within -- therefore she has no problem wearing skimpy dresses but she refuses to have premarital sex or drink. I thought that was an interesting concept.) Anyways, in Turkey, there are separate beaches and separate swimming pools for men and women so that women can maintain their modesty. So I just wonder if the reason why there's not a lot of Islamic women in the Olympics is because wearing a lot of clothes will hinder performance. It seems there are two choices: either have a swim meet where only women can participate and observe, or you don't play.[/quote']

 

No problem.

 

I agree with you in saying that there is a modesty factor that most Muslim women carry, and with regards to the veil, I'm not completely sure how all veiled women athletes go about doing sports such as serious swimming, soccer, track, etc. It makes sense what you are saying: wearing a lot of clothes would hinder athletic performance and one way to solve this would be through making single gender events.

 

My main and initial point, though, was that Muslim women have participated in the Olympics and probably will continued to do so (though there not so many that would call very much attention). As far as I know, there is no rule saying that Muslim women can't compete in athletics, but who knows, I could be wrong.

So, Tiger's Eye, just out of curiosity, how do you make female sports jive with the whole modesty thing?

I don't understand the question..."with the whole modesty thing?" Are you referring to the fact that women wear veils? That's a good question, but I'm not sure I could provide you with a suitable answer, though, since I'm not veiled, or Muslim, for that matter. Maybe they all stick to wearing swim caps and body suits I dunno (I can't really speak for ALL veiled women since I really don't know; my coach wore a cap and full body suit, though). Not all Muslim women are veiled: some dress just as casually as the women in the West do (at least, where I am), so wearing regular swimsuits, shorts, or tank-tops is not a really huge issue for them (depending where you are, since conservativeness varies from place to place, IMO).

Could you rephrase your question? Perhaps then I could further elaborate an appropriate reply.

I am more curious to know if the Islamic religion allows women to compete in the 2006 Olympics along side their male counterparts. I haven't seen anything that says it is acceptable.

 

Bettina

Doesn't say anywhere that it's UNACCEPTABLE to compete. One of my former swim coaches was an Olympic swimmer (she was sooo awesome! ). Actually, she was recently selected to join the current International Olympic Committee in 2004.

Ah, here's a link about her:

http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/ioc/members/bio_uk.asp?id=900

Do you think Islamics like the Olympics? I mean the events' date=' the bright colors, the happy people?

 

I wonder what they think when they see all that.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

 

I don't think that this is a fair statement to make (though I'm a little fuzzy on it's meaning). Aren't there Muslim countries that compete in the Olympics? I'm confused now We just had the African Cup of Nations here, and all the Muslims (men, women, and children) were pretty excited with bright and happy colors. I believe that the same goes for the World Cup.

 

There is an aspect of Islam that doesn't disagree with me, and that is the violent aspect that falls under 'protecting Islam'. In short (or from what understand), I wouldn't say that it's an 'eye for an eye' thing, but people are allowed to kill if they are 'threatened or if Islam is threatened' (please correct me if I'm wrong). Islam is a religion very different from, say, Catholicism. I think that we all (Jews, Christian, and Muslims) worship the same God, but we all interpret him in different ways. Personally, I think that while Christians view God in more of a fatherly way, Muslims may look at him differently, more........sacred? I dunno. Otherwise, whatever the Muslims do is just fine with me. It's definitely a more aggressive religion, but I think that these people who torch down things are just taking things WAYYYY out of proportion. They say that they kill the infidels in the name of Allah, but apparently, these people are the 'misguided' ones (I find Islam to be something practiced according to interpretation. What I mean by this is that there are some things that are written in the Qu'raan that is interpreted differently by different people. It's kind of like the Bible: some people see it as a book of lessons and stories, while others take it as the law, written in stone. In the same way, some Muslims will use and twist the words in their holy book in order to justify their own wants to kill. However, this is NOT everyone. Again, please correct me if I made any mistakes in my explanation, especially those who REALLY know more about Islam that me ): I don't think that God or Allah would've wanted it this way.

 

Again, this is only what I think.

I think that making an apology under coercion because of threats would be to appease and therefore encourage further the extermist elements within Islam. After the threats have been made it is no longer possible to apologise without it being as if the apology is only because of the threats' date=' regardless of whether that is actually true.

[/quote']

 

Ok, though I stiil don't really agree on this aspect, I see what you mean.

 

Printing cartoons that are disrespectful to religions is tasteless and crass. The best way to deal with tasteless and crass people is to ignore them or make clear that your respect for them has been lessen. If someone prints a cartoon or exhibits an 'artwork' which denigrates Christianity' date=' as happens frequently, the response is distaste for those crass people. It is not the demand that it be banned and the 'artists' punished or killed. Part of free speech is the right to be rude, repugnant and offensive, and conversely the right to treat those people with the contempt you think they deserve, but not to threaten them with violence.

[/quote']

 

Do you think that this will be the response of most people who are and (unfortunately) will be offended by the Holocaust cartoon contest? To ignore someone or something that insults your religious beliefs is a difficult thing to do, and though I agree that it would alleviate the situation, I'm not sure how many people will actually use this peaceful method if confronted with a similar event. Realistically, I think that few people would be strong enough to do it. Additionally, those people who print those cartoons are, as you say, tasteless and crass, and though they should not be banned from doing what is within their lawful rights, I think that they should be criticized for being tasteless and stooping so low as to be disrespectful.

 

 

I'm not trying to minimise the impact on some Danish workers and companies' date=' but in terms of the overall economy this is a relatively small disruption. If this disruption is painfull, imagine how bad it could get if this type of reaction is encouraged.

 

Incidentially, i'm not pinning everything on fanatics. I've made a clear distinction between fanatical elements within Islam and Islam as a whole. I agree that the power of the people is an amazing thing. This is a good lesson that i hope will be learned. That peaceful, democratic actions can have great effects. Hopefully this behaviour will be encouraged, rather than the resort to violence and the threats of violence.

 

 

 

 

 

As i've repeatedly stated.

 

It is extremist elements in Islam who are the problem. Unfortunately these extremist elements are becoming very influential. It is not possible to minimise or dismiss this as the actions of an unrepresentive minority.

 

 

 

 

I haven't catergorized Islam as a religion as warped. I have identified the actions of an important element within Islam as dangerous and warped. That is a very big and definite distinction.

 

Islam is a culture as much as a religion. If you read the Quran you will see that it encompasses an entire world view on how to live, from the smallest detail of personal conduct, to family affairs, to government organisation, to international affairs. Islam is more than a religion, it is an entire way of life, it is a culture. It needs to be understood and respected as such, but that should not mean that is should be off limits for satire or criticism.

[/quote']

 

Okay. The only thing I have to say is that while religions, including Islams, are all areas of which people are allowed to criticize, I think that this situation took it too far. Just because the newspapers are not Muslim does not mean that they should disrespect the fact that Muslims do not depict their religious figures and go ahead to print an offensive picture of the Prophet publically. This is simply irresponsible use of the press' freedom.

 

As to the lessons that this incident should teach us. I heard the Syrian minister for foriegn affairs on the radio this morning' date=' comparing the treatment of Muslims in Europe now with the holocaust. she stated that action was needed now to avert the impending murder of millions of Muslims in Europe.

 

It is clear that the Islamic world has an unhealthy attachment to the politics of grievance, making warped and bizare historical judgements. To consider some mildly unpleasant cartoons in a Danish paper to the systematic mass murder of millions of people is warped to the verge of insanity. This incident shows that there is a sickness spreading within Islam that needs to be openly confronted and treated. This hysterical over sensitivy shows that it is Islam which is facing major problems rather than the West.[/quote']

 

You must realize that this behavior does not speak for the entire Muslim population. I have not read the Qu'raan, and I do not completely understand Islam and what it preaches. However, from what I gather, Muslims interpret the Qu'raan differently. Several Muslims have called these fanatics as "misguided", twisting the words of the prophet and such in order to suit their own needs and kill in 'the name of Allah'. I see Islam through the world of the press and witness, as you say, a sickness spreading within Islam that needs to be openly confronted and treated. But then I see Islam through the people and friends with whom I interact with everyday and see no trace of such corruption. It's an unfortunate and unpredictable situation that we face now and as it carries on, it's sad to see how these generalizations will take effect on those who have no part, whether such bystanders be Muslim, Danish, etc.

Going back to the title of this thread, what lessons are we learning from this incident?

You seem to contradict yourself. You state that apologising would not be an act of cowardice' date=' then you state that the West should apologise because of the threat to peoples right to live decent lives. Apologising because of threats and intimidation would be an act of cowardice and would also be counterproductive in only encouraging further such bigotry from Muslim fanatics.

[/quote']

 

I don't see how I contradict myself. Are you saying that saving lives equates to intimidation? I did not make nor did I intend to make this connection in my arguements. I think that the newspapers *should* (though some have already) apologize because I think that the reprinting of the cartoons was a stupid thing to do in the first place, just like I think that this Holocaust cartoon contest that Iranian newspapers are hosting is stupid. Both are intentionally and severely offensive to a specific people in order to provoke certain responses and IMO that is just wrong.

 

It's a bad situation' date=' but appeasement only makes things worse. Giving in on this because of a little disruption to trade would potentially put a lot more jobs at risk as these fanatics repeated their successful tactics.

[/quote']

 

"A LITTLE disruption to trade"? Tell that to the Danish companies and employees that are all suffering from critical financial blows. Additionally, it's not really the fanatics that are screwing up the world economy. It's the peaceful protestors who are boycotting these Danish goods in order to get an apology. The power of the people is an amazing thing. You can't pin everything on the fanatics.

 

You are confusing two issues. Religious tolerance does not mean protecting religions from disrespect. Religious tolerance means allowing religions the right to be freely practiced. That is in tandeem with people retaining their right to be rude and disrespectful of each others beliefs and opinions. Part of religious freedom is the freedom to be disrespectful.

 

I stand corrected.

 

The difference being that Westerners are unlikely to burn down Iranian embassies and try to kill people because of a disrespectful cartoon printed in Iran.

 

That pretty much hihlights the difference between the two cultures and why it is worth fighting to protect and defend Western values from Islamic militancy.

 

You are generalizing. While I agree with you that the West is less likely to respond violently to what Iran does, again, it's the groups of Muslims extremists that are burning down the embassies and seeking blood. Don't catergorize or label a religion as warped because of the actions of certain people. You don't see the entire population of Muslims marching down the street and torching places, do you? Also, Islam is a religion, not a culture.

I'm just guessing, too, but I think that you might mean...

Don’t quote me on this because I haven’t fully researched it...but

 

I was under the impression that there was a division Islam...one large liberal tolerant group...and one much more intolerant smaller group.

The Sunnis and the Shi'ites? Those are the two main sects of Islam' date=' I believe. I thought that it had something to do with the Prophet, but I don't remember...

also

 

I'm pretty sure that around the 11th century and for about 200 years,

Christian Knights wearing the red cross marched to take the holy lands from Muslims.

 

Comprised of French German ...etc the knights finally captured Jerusalem... where a production line of Muslim Execution began.

 

 

The knights Templar had a red cross on a white background...while the Knights of St John marched under a white cross on a black background.

Hmmmm...... I was gonna say the Crusades, but I must be wrong then. Can't help you there, sry.

I think many muslims are as sensitive about Islam being portrayed as an inherently violent religion as jewish people are about the holocaust.

 

I don't see the difference between mocking the holocaust' date=' mocking child abuse in the catholic church, or mocking Mohammad.

 

 

There is a special danger though I guess in those portrayals of Mohammad. Everytime western culture and the world in general absorbs one more "islam is thrives on bombs" meme the millions of peaceful muslims in areas like Indonesia and elsewhere loose a little of their hold on their religion to militant muslims.

Here you have militant islam trying to take over the faith, and here are western cultures completely happy to say as far as we are concerned, they already have won.

 

There more we accept the Fawells and Robertsons as representative of Christiantity in the US and believe we have to deal with those types to deal with christians in America, the more marginalized moderate christians become.

 

So I guess, having thought about it, I can see the danger in allowing oneself to generalize (memes are infectious) about a group, but I am at more appalled by people killing over insults, which is even more destructive.[/quote']

 

 

Oh, I wasn't trying to make any comparisons between the Muslims and Jews or imply which one was worse or of the sort. I'm just really appalled that the Iranian newspapers would take such a drastic in order to make a point. They are well aware of the reactions that will be provoked from this cartoon contest, and that's the really disappointing part. This is becoming so absurd.

I think the stupidest thing I saw was in The Times (UK) today' date=' it was a real photograph from one of the 'protests' aka riots and it showed a man protesting wearing a pretend suicide bomber jacket.

 

Now remember that this 'protest' was against the cartoon calling a Muslim a suicide bomber, the guy was wearing a freaking suicide bomb jacket... he's proving the cartoon 100% correct. It's just soo dumb and is making the situation worst.

 

Fair enough they dislike a cartoon, but to then go on violent riots/protests in which they (a) prove the cartoon correct and (b) make other people dislike them [i']even[/i] more... it just annoys me.

All these violent protests are soooooo disappointing. The reactions to the cartoon have been uncalled for. Okay, these people have the right to be upset, but they are taking it way to far in threatening people's lives. And Iran? What is up with that? The Holocaust is not something to poke fun at or take lightly. Iranian newspaper is just dying to provoke people. Ugh. I feel bad for its civlians who have no part in all of this......

Well' date=' here's some irony for you. Iran's response to the Mohammad cartoons is... to draw some cartoons about the Holocaust. Because making fun of the systematic murder of 6 million people is the same thing as making fun of a prophet of a religion, right?

[/quote']

 

This is so stupid. Why must Iran try to prove a point that's just another way of picking a fight? Completely unnecessary.

You know this cartoon was first published in Septermber 2005' date=' that was 5 months ago.

 

And so someone publishes a cartoon portraying you as a suicide bomber, does going round burning Western flags and destroying embassies really help your cause??? NO! It makes your situation worst. Where's the logic?[/quote']

 

Those people torching embassies and such are taking things way to far to the point of absurdity.

 

Btw, didn't know that this cartoon (the one by the Danish artist, if that's the one you're talking about) was printed before. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

Oh, I just saw this:

The propaganda factor - the "pig" picture

 

One aspect that these governments might also want to examine is how they can counter false information.

 

Twelve cartoons were originally published by Jyllands-Posten. None showed the Prophet with the face of a pig. Yet such a portrayal has circulated in the Middle East (The BBC was caught out and for a time showed film of this in Gaza without realizing it was not one of the 12).

 

This picture, a fuzzy grey photocopy, can now be traced back (suspicion having been confirmed by an admission) to a delegation of Danish Muslim leaders who went to the Middle East in November to publicise the cartoons. The visit was organised by Abu Laban, a leading Muslim figure in Denmark.

 

According to the Danish paper Ekstra Bladet, the delegation took along a pamphlet showing the 12 drawings. But the delegation also showed a number of other pictures, including the "pig" one. The delegation claimed they were the sort of insults that Muslims in Denmark had to endure. These also got into circulation.

 

(Update: A reader has e-mailed to say that the original of the "pig" picture was from a "pig-squealing" competition held in France every summer. Some character dressed up like a pig. See the link to the neandernews.com site on the right for the details.

 

Ekstra Bladet has also published a letter taken by the delegation on its mission. This gives the delegation's account of how the cartoons originated and what the reaction to them was. But it also mentions other pictures, which it said were "much more offending." These presumably included the "pig" picture, whose origin is now known.)

 

Western diplomats appear to have missed this entirely and seem to have made no attempt to counter some of the arguments in the pamphlet or to distinguish between the various portrayals.

 

It might not have made much difference but it shows how rapidly propaganda can add to fuel to the fire.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4686536.stm

 

Uh oh.

Not one bit. Because it doesn't relate. Killing a little girl for lust is much different than beheading people for religious reasons, or spitting on allah, or drawing a cartoon. Show me in my posts where there is a similarity.

While I definitely feel that a pervert who rapes a little girl should be punished for all eternity, the way you express (and have expressed) yourself gives off the impression that you would want to kill this man for your own sense of satisfaction. Isn't that what he did? Kill for satisfaction? Personally, I think that this worse than killing in the name of religion (Not like I support it; it's likely to be an excuse for people who may just thirst for blood, which is the worst). Your feelings are your feelings, but......it doesn't sit too well from the way I see it.

Edit... I'll say this again. If we don't stop the spread of the Islamic religion' date=' its going to kill us, and I do mean kill us.[/quote']

 

Like some posters have already said, this is really harsh. It's the kind of feeling that would promote ethnic (or in this case, religious) cleansing, isn't it? There ARE lots of Muslims in this world who are NOT like the extremists that we see on TV.

The point is that to back down because of intimidation and acts of violence will encourage this foul behaviour. It is clear that a lot of people are being deliberately hyper sensitive and are looking for excuses to be offended. If they are appeased on one point then they will simply be emboldened and the situation will be even worse the next time they find some excuse to be offended.

 

 

 

Free speech is a freedom that is worth making a lot of sacrifices for. To trade liberty for security will result in you ending up with neither.

 

 

 

 

This is clearly a case where a group of Muslim clerics have deliberately gone out of their way to artificially create outrage (to the extent of lying and forging fake cartoons to fool the gulible) It is a case where a lot of Muslims have deliberately provoked confrontation. Yes' date=' ordinary people are deeply involved. This is a matter which goes to the heart of the type of civilisation we want to live in. Should freedom of expression be curtailed by the fear of violent aggressive religious bigotry, or should we vigourously defend our liberties?

 

A lot of 'fundamentalist' Muslims consdier the 'West' to be irredemably decadent, being easily cowed, unwilling to defend its values and therefore ultimately doomed. Caving in on this issue would help to prove them right.

 

Perhaps they are right.[/quote']

 

Your last sentence is interesting. Why speculate? I mean, that seems to weaken your arguement that freedom of speech is something worth a lot of sacrifices. How can you believe in the freedom if you doubt the people that built it? Do you really think that if the West apologized for the cartoons, then this will look like an act of cowardice? This had never crossed my mind. I just thought that it would've been the right thing to do because (a) reprinting the cartoon was just a silly thing to do and (b) it would not forfeit people's (namely employees of those Danish companies) right to live decent lives. I know that life is not always fair and that sacrifices should be made in order to protect an ideal/value (which is 'strangely' what both sides appear to be doing, though in a twisted way that's not agreeable), but how far should these protectors be willing to go? Do you just say 'tough' to these employees who might not get better jobs? I wonder what they'd think/say. Additionally, the fundamentalists are being ridiculous, and it seems that they seem to grab all the attention of everyone. Unfortunately, we then neglect those people who are peacefully protesting instead of torching embassies. Are you just gonna tell them to stick it, too? I don't see how that is right: should they be treated with equal disrespect because of someone else's stupid actions? And besides, what happened to the idea of 'religious tolerance'? Freedom in the West has worked well for a long time because people have learned how to respect and accept each other, but what now? All in all, how are we to protect those people who are suffering while we are 'protecting' their rights? (the wording is a bit confusing )

 

Btw, I smell trouble......

 

"Iranian Paper Plans Holocaust Cartoons "

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060207/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_cartoons_2;_ylt=AvWU5lzhaQc5o7B5LqgBKfPbEfQA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

From the frying pan into the fire, as they say.

I've heard this as well' date=' and I think it's an excellent point (actually two excellent points -- it's definitely getting lost in the media frenzy).

 

Is it possible that the real story here is that the *majority* of Muslims in the region *aren't* rioting in the streets, and are avoiding it not because they are afraid of the violence (etc), but because they see it as the wrong course of action?

 

I dunno -- nobody is reporting THAT story (as swansont says, people sitting at home ain't news). That's a shame.[/quote']

 

Really good point, Pangloss. Ditto to Swansont and Severian (I wanted to watch that interview, but no go ).

 

I think that despite the fact that a lot of Muslims are really upset by the cartoon, they seriously disapprove with the drastic measures and outrageous extremes that are being taken by extremists, such as torching the embassy in Beirut. Muslims have condemed these acts, but this aspect lacks the appropriate media attention that it deserves. It's true that people might not be as interested in seeing these peaceful protestors and such, but one can't help wondering how it might affect the current situation.

Yep. There are more than a billion Muslims and I don't think we're actually seeing protests by even a million of them. The media is showing those that squeal the loudest and portrays them as representative of the whole group. In a way this induces the problem to grow as the media helps to influence Muslims in other areas that the numbers of protesters are larger than they really are. The media is effectively inciting riots.

Very true statement. The media is incredibly powerful these days, and, unfortunately, it is pretty biased, and I mean biased everywhere around the world. It's hard to find a really reliable source to get news from these days.

From a totally cold hearted point of view' date=' there are a few advantages to the death penalty above the cost savings in prison holdings.

 

For example, if you consider that the criminal behavior has a genetic root...then the death penalty removes the gene set from the general population.

 

In fact it might be a good idea to kill all the children of a criminal, to be on the absolute safe side.

 

Secondly, if the criminal behavior has a family environmental root...then by killing all the siblings, the social structure is also removed from propagation..

 

But it might be a good idea to kill the parents of a criminal as well.

They must have had a hand in setting the social scene for the behavior.

 

Trouble is...I don’t think I'm cold hearted enough to want any part of this practical yet horrific solution.[/quote']

 

It's a trivial question, but would this be in any way legal? Very cold-hearted as you say. I'd seriously dislike to have THAT as my field of work It's an awful lot of killing...

To not print the cartoon would be to reward the threats of violence. It would send a clear message to the hate mongers that if you threaten people with murder and terrorism that you will get your way.

 

The way to deal with all bullies is to stand up to them.

Tell me, what good will the continued publication of this cartoon bring? It is only succeeding in getting people upset and elevating violence. This situation is getting more dangerous than just protecting one's right to free speech. In addition to violence, it's hurting the Danish economy and the boycotting will ruin hundreds of lives, namely of employees who will be put out of jobs due to a company's financial issues. When will it stop? The Muslims are getting fired up by the fact that this cartoon continues to be published and the press continues to publish it in order to prove a point to the Muslims. Again, whom is provoking who? This is more than the press or terrorism: ordinary people and citizens are now deeply involved.

Freedom needs to be protected from aggressive bigotry. Being mealy mouthed in the face of demands for censorship backed up by threats of murder is wrong. It is aggressive Islam which is being abusive and destructive here' date=' not the press.[/quote']

 

I understand that freedom of speech/expression should be protected, but is it right for newspapers to continue reprinting this cartoon, now that the religious issue is known and anger is rapidly escalating (on all sides)? Who's provoking whom?

No there isn't.

 

 

All people should be allowed to express their opinions freely. That includes being disrespectful.

 

 

 

So what if Islam FORBIDS anything? Why should Danes (or anyone else)be subject to Islamic law?

 

 

 

 

There is nothing spectacularly indecent about these cartoons. What is indecent is the hysterical Muslim overreaction' date=' calling for the killing of the cartoonists, and what is also indecent is the rush of apologists for this brutal and dangerous aggression from very many Muslims.

 

 

 

 

 

So freedom of speech. Just as long as you don't actually exercise that freedom in anyway that someone claims 'offends' them. :rolleyes:[/quote']

 

So, it's not indecent to insult and denegrade another person's religious beliefs because you disagree with them? That's stooping down pretty low, to be intentionally disrespectful. I agree that the Muslims are taking overly drastic measures with their violent protests and calls for massive killing, but they do have reason to be upset. I'm pretty sure that a lot of Christians would be pretty pissed off if Christ were depicted in a Nazi suit with a caption beneath it saying that the Nazis did what they did in the name of Christianity. Right now, this is turning into an issue that looks as if it's asking "which is mightier, the press or religion?" Hmmmmmmmm.....it's a really delicate subject. As I said before, freedom should be handled with responsibility. Otherwise, it can become abused and destructive.