1) Islam won't police itself. Islam can't be policed. The law has to police humans and people have to police people. No one is more or less responsible except those who create a racist/violent ideology - obviously, those people won't come out and condemn things they support. 2) I didn't understand this sentence. What do you mean have the same level of contempt for their brethren... ? 3) It is ok to be offended, it is not ok to preach violence and it is not ok to be complacent about defending free speech. I agree with all that. I won't defend the action, but I will defend the right to engage in the action/freedom till I die.
So is the problem that they are offended by it, or the few that react violently? I don't have a problem with them being offended. I wouldn't be offended, and I don't really understand taking offense, but there's no harm in it. What Islam holds as sacred isn't really for others to judge unless it becomes violent. So why do something to offend people just because you don't want them to find an activity offensive?
No no. How can you prove that the best possible outcome is achieved by repeatedly attacking those people. To me, America is a giant failed experiment in that regard seeing as the conservatives and non-conservatives harbor extreme hatred for each other and are simply taking the stress out in different areas - see conservatives reaction to obama's health insurance plan. A fantastic plan, which the opposers did not any alternative to, but bashed incessantly with minimum rationale. Just pure hatred IMO. Do you prefer having the right to offend and exercising it or having the right and not needing to exercise it?
Obviously violence is the big problem. The argument, however, seems to have become that because it will offend, it should be self-censored. I have absolutely no problem with them being as offended as they want. In fact, I think pushing people into uncomfortable places is good because it makes them think. I'm thinking of things like A Modest Proposal, as an example of making people uncomfortable to make them think. I don't approve of the idea that offense requires me to self-censor. I bring this up in every thread on this subject, but I go back to The Emperor's New Clothes as the ultimate parable in what self censorship out of fear/respect leads to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desensitization_(psychology)
Since there has only been one America in the history of the universe, and I'm not allowed to start the process over from the beginning, obviously I can't. This is a fallacious argument used by the Global Warming Deniers. I could just as easily demand you prove to me that there are better outcomes, and you will be just as helpless to, "prove it". There has never in the history of the universe been a country where as many diverse backgrounds come together and manage to work it out. And all things considered, given the per capita income we must be doing something right. The closest other example I can think of is India with all the different religious factions, and they are definitely a bigger mess than the USA.
Really? Taking offense to things that aren't worth being offended over is how extremism spreads in the first place. Its definitely harmful.
The actions of extremist Muslims are affecting everyone's lifes, particularly the majority of Muslims who are peaceful and moderate.
Then they need to turn around to their brethren that are preaching hatred and violence and simply say...... STFU ! DD
I agree. Everybody who claims moderate Muslims don't speak up should read this: http://www.ibishblog.com/blog/hibish/2010/05/08/american_muslims_and_terrorism_silence_or_deafness [rquoter] The discourse about denunciations and silence implicitly makes the 3-6 million or so Muslim-Americans (no one has any real clue as to the actual statistic) in some way responsible for every major crime or atrocity committed by one in five people in the entire world - at least until they say they are against it in each and every specific case. To forestall this kind of silly criticism, the community would have to hire a small team of professional denouncers, like the chorus in a Greek tragedy, to issue the daily condemnations of everything vile done by anyone of Muslim background anywhere in the world. [/rquoter]
It's only harmful if they react in an extreme way. It is by no means "definitely" harmful. What is harmful is if one group of people thinks they get to decide what is and isn't worthy of being held sacred and causing offense for everyone else. Like I said, I couldn't imagine being offended at a cartoon like that, but if another group is offended at something like that, isn't it kind of arrogant for others to tell them they are wrong to be offended? Who are you or anyone else to decide that for them?
I agree that people shouldn't self censor. If there was a reason to make a cartoon image of Mohammad, because it was hilarious and someone's job to make funny things, then by all means they should make it, and let whoever is offended be offended. But that isn't the case for this May 20 thing. The May 20 thing is that people seem to be itching for a chance to offend Muslims for no reason other than they don't understand why anyone would be offended by it. I'm not opposed to cartoons of Mohammad at all. I'm opposed to cartoons simply for the sake of offending that serve no other purpose.
Being upset is not a crime. If people didn't get upset by some free speech, it wouldn't be worth protecting. What a cop out your last sentence is. Backed into a corner, you decide to slap the Muslim with the 'dangerous' tag. You LITERALLY said you don't see it. Man up and admit it.
Idol worship. For a tiny example on a far smaller scale, see this fellow: <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kHmvkRoEowc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kHmvkRoEowc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> Is it terrible that Muslims don't want their followers to start worshiping the Prophet PBUH? That there is a law in place to avoid him becoming a cult figure? Good idea IMO. Hakeem did it - did it change your view of him? Certainly non-Muslims, whether legally and Islamically, are allowed to do it. Much like the Prophet allowed lots of things (specifically for non_muslims) that were against Islamic law in his state/country and he protected the rights and freedoms of non-Muslims in the constitution of Medina.
You don't think this restriction is having the opposite effect? Some guy in Europe decides to publish drawings of Mohammed, and he receives death threats as if he just urinated on sacred ground. By proclaiming that it is WRONG to draw Mohammed, you are turning him into a sacred object.
Where? I most assuredly did not. If this is what you are talking about: I don't think you properly appreciate exactly how completely and totally offended I am by being told I can't talk or think about something because to do so would be disrespectful. So really, we come back to your failure to understand my side. Yeah. As I've said, I think it's dangerous if Christians, Jews, Hindus, Republican, Democrats, etc. believe something is too sacred to think about. You know what the real cop out is? Trying to play the "Islamophobia" angle.
