I don't think it is. If I had a problem with freely expressing your opinion, I would have a problem with this: But I don't. So he shouldn't be threatened, he should be hated, and if he gets what he wanted (an extreme reaction from extremists), then he got what he wanted. I don't know why people do heroine (assuming its legal). If they ignore everyone's pleas not to do it, and they eventually end up broke and addicted, I don't feel any sadness. They wanted heroine, and they knew that one of the risks of heroine is a high level of addiction. The fact that they became addicted (or that the cartoonist was threatened) is out of my control. Such reaction is automatic - remember that you are talking about an irrational and crazy group of people. Should he live in fear? Nope. Am I sad if he does? Nope. Am I surprised that he does? Nope. Should someone who issues a death threat go to jail? Yes. Does that mean no one should issue a death threat? Yes. Does that mean no one will issue a death threat? Nope. Is the law taking care of this? Yes. If your'e a journalist, do what you like. But if you show a giant middle finger to Israelis, expect a psycho Israeli to try to kill you. That doesn't make it a good thing. At the same time, I won't feel bad for you. If, for one split second, I was able to believe that the Danish cartoonist simply wanted to share his sincere views, I wouldn't be so irritated about it. I don't believe it at all. I think he wanted to do exactly what happened to publicize the results. As long as anyone who broke the law was properly dealt with, I'm happy for the cartoonist. He got his wish. The extremists started burning flags and chanting and tried to kill him, everyone heard about it. I don't know how many more examples to give. If I go into a cage of animals and start waving a stick in front of their eyes, they will do what animals do. They will attack me. No one is going to say "poor guy", everyone is going to say "what an idiot, why did he provoke them to kill him? he KNEW that they would kill him." No sympathy for the disgusting man.
Are you joking or are you intentionally trying to provoke me? Clearly, unless viewed through the eyes of a racist bigot, I am saying that the actions of a minuscule group of Muslims who try to murder innocent people are like the actions of animals, therefore I likened them to animals.
This comparison of Muslim extremists to animals is very problematic. If he he goes into a cage and waves a stick in front of the animals eyes, what is the animal's thinking? It's instinct is to believe that it is being threatened, and it attacks. We can not pass moral judgment on the animal, because it is acting only according to its nature and limited awareness of the man's intentions. The man is an idiot because (1) he should have known what the consequences would be, and (2) there is no obligation on the animal's part to not attack. The animal acted as it should, being the animal it is. This is quite different. The Danish man may or may not have predicted the reaction he got. I don't think he expected the global outrage, but who knows. More importantly, there was a principle behind this. An illustrator or journalist shouldn't live in fear of his life for publishing material that may be offensive to Muslims. There is no reason for such cartoons to spark hateful, threatening responses from rational human beings. By self-censorship, it can be argued that the media is tacitly condoning those types of reactions. Here is the background of these cartoons, from Wikipedia: [rquoter] On 17 September 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article under the headline "Dyb angst for kritik af islam"[8] ("Profound anxiety about criticism of Islam"). The article in Politiken was the basis of a Ritzau telegram from the day before written by journalist Troels Pedersen. The article by Ritzau discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was initially unable to find an illustrator prepared to work with Bluitgen on his children's book Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv (English: The Qur'an and the life of the Prophet Muhammad ISBN 87-638-0049-7). Three artists declined Bluitgen's proposal before one agreed to assist anonymously. According to Bluitgen: One [artist declined], with reference to the murder in Amsterdam of the film director Theo van Gogh, while another [declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute in Copenhagen.[8] In October 2004, a lecturer at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen had been assaulted by five assailants who opposed his reading of the Qur'an to non-Muslims during a lecture.[9] The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence of self-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark, with other examples for similar reasons soon emerging. Comedian Frank Hvam declared that he would (hypothetically) dare to urinate on the Bible on television, but not on the Qur'an.[10][11] [/rquoter] You wrote that "he shouldn't be threatened, he should be hated." Can you clarify that? Do you mean that he should be hated because of the contents of the cartoons that he allowed to be published, or that he should be hated because he did so despite having a good idea what the reaction would be? I don't believe there is good reason for him to be hated either way.
Mathloom; Thank you for this thread and it is very informative and for the most part very well reasoned. I particularly found this statement from you very interesting: I had a discussion with you awhile back regarding whether religion has been an overall good or an overall bad for humanity and I think what you have been explaining here is what I was getting at. When I speak of religion has being an overall bad I am not speaking of the idea of religion in itself but how it has been used by people. Religion is a very powerful thing and how that power is wielded can bring hope or bring misery to a lot of people. I think you recognize that in regard to how humans have ended up causing all sorts harm to each other based on how they use religious doctrine. That is not to say that the doctrine itself might not be an overall good. I like your ideas for reforming Islam as a whole and wish you the best of luck doing so. One question. What do you think of Malaysia and how Mahathir has been trying to create a 21st Century Islamic culture?
This is a derail to an otherwise great thread but I find it somewhat disturbing you still feel this way. As I've said before I can understand why you are offended and you have the right to state that offense, peacefully, but at least as another human being can you have sympathy for him living in fear? Rather than gloat in the fact that he is living in fear wouldn't it be better for you and for him to try to win him over by showing that Muslims aren't crazy terrorists but people who are rightfully offended but will do so peacefully?
I really WANT TO think that, but then some stuff slips through like "the cartoonist SHOULD BE HATED" and that totally devalues all the other theoretical stuff to me, because it just goes to show me that the value and belief systems are completely different and possibly irreconcilable. Now I don't know where Mathloom is in the spectrum of being moderate/fundamentalist within Islam, but if he is one of the "moderates", that would be scary. I am surprised, not to say shocked, that I seem to be almost the only one calling him out on that stuff and stuff like calling me a terrorist, while the leftist wingnuts and his fellow Muslims don't hesitate to jump down my throat for saying I feel uncomfortable with Islam in its current state and public displays of it. It's either excessive political correctness or stupidity.
We are not animals we are people who should be able to think. You seemed to be very thoughtful and well written, but the fact you don't seem to understand the concept of free speech is kind of disturbing.
This is what I am saying. A psycho extremist will act according to his/her nature, as he/she should, by definition of psycho extremist. Whether it's justified or not is another issue. Two points: 1) He certainly knew. 2) It is not "more importantly" to me. 3) As I've said before, if free speech includes the ability to disagree and make outlandish statements, then that's a respectable position. If free speech includes no repercussions for those who use it out of sheer "evil" will, I am not up for it. Much like a person who jokingly screams "bomb" or "we've been hijacked" on an airplane sending everyone into panic, I believe this kind of behavior can't be respected. In this case, no one will ever be able to prove what his intention was on paper. But in my head and heart, I feel his intention is one which is starving for hatred. Even putting psycho extremists aside, the cartoon would have negative and damaging effects on Danish society. That is, to me, enough to know that the man is worthless. To me, his actions need to be taken more seriously as an intentional attempt at causing societal problems for the population of his country. He should be hated because he intentionally riled up the crazies by putting up a blatantly false image which had zero comedic value. The moment he drew it, he knew only one thing could result. There was no genuine interest in publishing it as an expression of free speech or as a hilarious caricature. Think same thing would not happen if he bought the front page and proclaimed his irritation with public prayer and that the text of the Quran or the Prophet PBUH promotes violence. The man, IMO, was fully intent on pissing people off. It's not a position I can ever respect. I'd rather not talk about this here, but I guess if you're interested you could start a thread or bring up the whole one. This seems to be derailing the intent of the thread.
I can agree with you, except that I don't think individuals are the problem. I think organized religion is a problem because of the organizers. The centralizing of authority. As you said, it is a powerful tool, and humans IMO are power-hungry. Our power-hungriness is very underestimated I think. I'm honestly not at all familiar with Mahathir and this movement in Malaysia. I will definitely read up on it now that you've mentioned it. I definitely love some elements of Turkish Islamic thought since the secularization. It will continue to be difficult going forward it seems, but when I was there, I was happy with the efforts the government made to protect Islam and allow it to be purified. Unfortunately, many people see secularism as the erasing of religion - which it can be - but they should realize that this is not necessarily the case.
If you notice myself and many other posters have called Mathloom out for his position regarding the Danish Cartoonist.
Free speech can be a weapon, and I think that is something underestimated by many people in the West. Clearly incitement is a form of free speech, albeit an irresponsible form of free speech. This is also why not all forms of free speech are protected speech, CLEARLY many societies in the West have determined that it is in the general interest of social cohesion and peace to ban or punish some forms of free speech, and that includes examples of so-called hate speech which is banned or punished in secular/liberal countries like Germany and the UK. Having said that, and I think events have proven that over time, the Danish cartoons have provoked violence and deaths, and their impact was, in my own estimation, no different than screaming fire in a crowded theater. I do think there has to be limitations on free speech for the greater good, it would be the end of civilization as we know it if every idiot walked around and screamed out whatever they felt like saying, causing incitement and violence and disturbing the peace everywhere they went. Countless western government agree with this position of mine and that is why they ban or restrict certain forms of speech in the greater interest of society. You can certainly say and promote Nazi propaganda in Germany, but you will be punished for it by law. Free speech exercised irresponsibly in the form of incitement through the media can, and has had, enormous negative consequences throughout human history. Do we dare forget Rwanda or Nazi propaganda? Are you saying words don't lead to violence? Incitement speech has some serious consequences, and many times it is in blood. I support some restrictions on free speech, which is already the case anyways.
I just saw a film at the Tribeca Film Festival I thought a lot of people on this board could see and it would help them on their perspective and perhaps understand the clash of ignorance between both sides, its called "Just Like Us" Its about Arabic/muslim world comedy so its very interesting, funny too. Also, in relation to jihad and Islam in general, we have the best example of a devout Muslim right here. Our Very own Olajuwon was once a fighter in the league with a rep to throw punches, he goes on the record for pursuing Islam further and learning more about it, then he learned of discipline, sacrific, will power, and controlling your temper, he was an amazing sportsman, teammmate, nad all around humble person. He embodies what it meant and his transition is a testimony to the true virtues
Don't you think you are inadvertently trying to equate Christian teachings with human nature? Remember, even in the Old Testament of the Bible, it was an "eye for an eye", only Jesus, in the New Testament, changed courses in respect to retaliation. Also, I am curious since I have not studied other religions, is there any other religious doctrine that teaches the concept of "not retaliating" as Christianity does?
This though can lead to a very slippery slope in regard to who decides what speech to censor. What is considered incitement speech is very much in the eye of the beholder and can change depending on one's political views. Given the very subjective nature of such things I think restrictions on speech are something that should be approached with the utmost reluctance. In regard to the Danish Cartoons whether they were meant to incite or not still ignores the fact that the Muslims who rioted violently also are endowed with their own volition and each of them made a decision to act in a violent manner. While yes they were offended its not as though they are automata that can only react in one way in response to stimula. As other posters have noted essentially dehumanizes them and removes their responsibility. As I've said before we are rapidly moving to one plural global society where inevitable groups will get offended by the speech and actions of other groups. Rather than seek to clamp down on offensive speech I think we need more speech to counter speech that people find offensive.
I don't know, but I don't think one's sense of right and wrong should derive from any particular religious doctrine.
Buddhism, perhaps. None others that I'm aware of. I don't know that any get to the point of "love your enemy" in a more dramatic way than Christ on the cross asking for the forgiveness of his prosecutors. To me...if Christ is who I filter my understanding of God through....we start at the point of love and work from there. No love to be earned, it's just granted to everyone. That's the starting place. And it has HUGE implications for how those of us who claim to be following Jesus MUST view other human beings.
