Mohammed Cartoons controversey

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

What gets me is that the crux of the anger is centering aound a ban meant to prevent an image of the prophet from being made into a false idol.

It reminds me of a Zen story where two monks are at a muddy crossroads when a beautiful lady in a Kimono appears on the other side. She cannot cross the road because it is so muddy so one of the monks walks over to her picks her up and carries her across (which is expressly forbidden by his strict order) he and the other monk continue on in silence for hours until finally fed up the other monk explodes and begins chastising the first monk for his actions. "we are forbidden to touch women, you are to frivalous with your vows" he yells and yells and finally stops. The first monk waits a breath and serenely answers. " You are upset about that woman... I dont understand, I left her at the crossroads. Why didnt you?"

Certainly there should be a measure of respect and reverence to other cultures. but resorting to violence because of a cartoon is just asanine.  

[42]

Wars usually start over cultural differences.

The U.S. is by far the most culturally tolerant country I know of, and we still have lots of cultural conflicts. In fact, many people who study societal structures firmly believe that in order for one culture to thrive another culture must be oppressed.

As I see it, the muslims in northern Europe probably already feel oppressed, especially since Northern Europe isn't exactly embracing of religions. So the cartoon being printed is just a symbol to the muslims of how they are feared and disliked. They probably already feel that the governments of Denmark and Norway are just a step away from ordering the execution of all Muslims. So making death threats when you think you are already being threatened with violence isn't such a stretch.

The editor was just thinking that he has a right to do something so he ought to do it. I guess when you have a fire you have every right to throw more fuel on it.

[42]

Things aren't getting better: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10705393/

Here's one reporters attempt to explain things: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11164199/

The Freedom of Expression/Speech argument seems to be adding insult to injury.

[Entsuropi]

"Free speech is to a great people what winds are to oceans and malarial regions, which waft away the elements of disease and bring new elements of health; and where free speech is stopped, miasma is bred, and death comes fast."

     Henry Ward BEECHER
American Congregational preacher, orator, and lecturer (1813-1887)

      "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightning."

     Frederick DOUGLASS
American abolitionist, author, orator (1817-1895)

      "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

Francois Marie Arouet VOLTAIRE
The Friends of Voltaire, 1907
French philosopher and writer (1694-1778)

That about sums it up for me. Quotes taken from here.

[42]

Frederick Douglass has a good point about the whole agitation thing.

See, I don't really see the issue as being about free speech anymore.  I see it about two cultures miscommunicating with each other.

To me, there is a lot of defensive posturing going on. One side will either have to forgive the other, or one side will have to violently force the other into submission.

I think it would be a lot easier just to offer a blatant apology to the Islamic world, then place the editor/illustrator in protective custody (hiding) for awhile until the death threats subside.

The other option is to escalate violence against the Islamic world in attempt to force them to accept free speech and other foreign values like freedom of religion. Maybe that is what's best overall, but are we willing to accept the casualties.

[Entsuropi]

I think that, either way, this will be viewed in the future as some sort of catalyst point. I don't think the Western world will offer a full apology to the Muslim countries; we went through too much in our history to give up the Free Speech thing.

The BBC did an article saying that it's not really the ban on images that is causing the issue: it's the satirical nature of them, and the perception of a European hatred of Islam. Another article offers some dissenting views within the muslim world.

I think that, deep down, it's about the Muslim world and the European (and, by extension, the American) world clashing. To a lot of people here in Europe, this argument is something that highlights the problem of Muslim communities in Europe - that they stick to the values of a society that is radically different from Europe, one where religion retains a role it hasn't had here for centuries. It's unlikely many people in Europe will feel we should back down, since it's hitting close to home. And the Muslim world seems to feel under fire, after the war on terror, and views this as an attack.

Bad stuff. It'll probably end up entering the history books as being one of the things that led to something bad.

[MsFish]

The other option is to escalate violence against the Islamic world in attempt to force them to accept free speech and other foreign values like freedom of religion. Maybe that is what's best overall, but are we willing to accept the casualties.

I can see where this method of dealing with the problem comes from, but the idea of forcing people to accept freedom really seems like a contradiction to me.  I mean, if we really believe in freedom, shouldn't we believe in the freedom of other cultures to disagree with that freedom?  But then, can they disagree with that freedom when it is the freedom itself that allows them the opportunity to disagree?

On the other hand, arguments like that are probably more of a philosophical excercise than anything practical.

[42]

The whole thing is eerily reminiscent of the Crusades.

[MsFish]

There's a terrifying thought.  

[CtrlZed]

Mention of the Crusades is interesting because Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity.  But Islam is also going through this "Crusader" stage in a difficult time in history when the world is getting much smaller because of communications and advanced travel.  With all the influence that the Western world inadvertantly exerts upon the Middle East, a lot of Muslims fear for their way of life and are trying to figure out how their religion fits into an advanced, smaller, technological world.

It's sad to see how people react, but at the same time it's very interesting from a historical standpoint.

[Faster Master St. Pastor]

Something new.

Things are definitely not getting better.

[MsFish]

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a statement that the resentment over the caricatures "cannot justify violence, least of all when directed at people who have no responsibility for, or control over, the publications in question."

 

This says it all for me.  

[Entsuropi]

Ferry Passenger Families Lash Out in Egypt

FEBRUARY 06, 2006

Relatives of passengers on a ferry that sank in the Red Sea attacked the offices of the ship's owners Monday, throwing furniture into the street and burning the company's sign. Riot police fired tear gas to restore order.

I'm starting to see a pattern here...

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I don't care that the editor was retarded. I was just pointing out that whatever decision he made, he's a moron for not realizing that exactly what's happening is not only possibly, but the LIKELY result of printing something inflamatory like that.

Yes, we need to accept that bad things, mean things, will be said when we allow freedom of speach. However, I have to repeat 42, "The editor was just thinking that he has a right to do something so he ought to do it. I guess when you have a fire you have every right to throw more fuel on it." Neither 42 nor I are or have stated that the editor had no right to say what he said. He did. In no uncertain terms, the newspaper was well within it's legal and civil rights to publish those cartoons. They should not be punished for what they did.

However, they knew it would be inflammatory as well (or, if as the editor claims, they didn't think of it, they're complete idiots who really shouldn't be running a newspaper), and thus really shouldn't be indignant that there's fallout over it. They made their bed, they should sleep in it. It was tacky and tasteless. In short, just because you have a right to do something, doesn't mean that you have a duty to do so. THe intelligent exercise of your freedoms makes the world a better place than the recklessly abandoned abuse of them. It's because people do things like this that some countries don't want to allow freedom of speech.

The answer, obviously, is not to rein in freedom of speech. That would be dumb. The answer IS for individuals to be a bit less stupid about how they use the freedoms they have. This would show these countries that freedom of speech and the press can be used for desirable ends.

I, for one, would like it if there had been considerably less killing or anger just because of one unwisely edited newspaper article.

Now, I'm sure I'll be jumped on for all that, so let me clarify. I abhor anyone who makes a death threat for most any reason. The language of hatred is extremely widespread in the Muslim world right now. That is, in my mind, an evil thing they have allowed to take root. Those individuals participating in violent demonstrations and death threats and so forth really need to shut it and get over themselves. The opinion they believe is being stated by the cartoons is only being reinforced by this behavior. I'll bet that 90% of them haven't even seen the cartoons and are just acting out because someone told them that the Danes are publishing things that make them look bad. Disgustingly ignorant.

However, I think I have a much better chance (even though that hope is still slim -- perhaps that makes me a pessimist) of reaching those supporting the editor and helping them act rationally (we do, after all, share a similar culture and civil point of view) than the folks waving pitchforks and torches from a completely different culture. That is why the majority of my language is focussed on the irresponsibility of the newspaper. NOt because I think they committed a worse action (they were just dumb), but because I can possibly communicate with them.

[Skar]

The whole thing is eerily reminiscent of the Crusades.

What it's really reminiscent of is what the "muslims" did prior to the western crusades, which was conquer and pillage as much as they could of the world and enforce their religious laws on the indigenous populations while at the same time treating those who did not belong to their religion as fourth class citizens.

If it hadn't been for a french general/king named Martel Europe, probably including England and therefore all of the New World, would now be exactly like what the middle-east would be like if the West didn't exist.  That's scary.

What did Martel do?  He fought the encroaching Muslim hordes to a stand-still just this side of the Pyrennese.

Now that the world is so small the fanatical-militant-islamist hordes are being fought to a standstill in many different places and running rampant where they are not.  

I've lived in countries where Sharia was the law and I'm glad I don't live their now.


The question of forcibly installing freedom is a tricky one.  It's obviously not acceptable to do nothing when a country is threatening you and killing your citizens and/or allies, especially not in this day and age of NBC weapons.  But it is also just as obviously not acceptable to go around forcing people that you have no connection with to adopt your style of government.

So that leaves the question, when you attack a country and remove from power the government that was responsible for threatening you, what government do you set up in its place.  To leave nothing means either violent chaos or an immediate return to power by the people you just threw out.  If all your concerned about is that country not attacking you any more the best bet is to set up a puppet dictatorship, but that's just plain wrong.  So what can you do besides set up the best, most equitable, tolerant and most prosperous kind of government you know about?  Today that best government is obviously a democracy.

The current leaders in the middle-east, be they terrorist or state leaders, are not against Ameican installed democracy because they think their way would be better for the people.  They are against it because solid entrenched democracies are ridiculously hard to "rule with an iron fist" and are remarkably resistant to being turned back into dictatorships.  They view rule "by and for the people" as a cancer that will eat them out of power and privilege.  Osam bin Laden's desire to set up a world wide Islamic empire has nothing to do with a desire to install a system that will be good for everybody, he just wants one that would be good for him and his cronies. Whether that means giving him the power to have all the women wine and song he wants or simply the knowledge that everyone is forced to live according to his moral ideas is immaterial.  

At the same time the U.S. policy of installing democracy is only partially rooted in a desire to give the people in Iraq and Afghanistan freedom.  The other big part is a desire to keep 9-11 or anything worse from ever happening again.  Peope who are more concerned with making money, buying cars, and getting their kids through college (as happens in a democracy) are much better neighbors than people who live in oppressed and uneducated squalor (as happens under Sharia).  People who live in oppressed and uneducated squalor are easily persuaded to blow themselves up in crowded restaurants and fly planes into buildings.  People who have actual control over their own lives and hope for the future are not.