From the London Times:

Judging by his remarks in Qatar yesterday, in which he attacked the Danish cartoons as "appalling", Bill Clinton will, doubtless, once again be, well, appalled.

[ February 03, 2006, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Freedom of speech will be a fundamental issue to be confronted between fundamentalists and progressives everywhere.

That fundamentalist Islamists oppose it with physical threats makes its enemies more clear. The more subtle threat comes in the form of abuse of information gathered secretly and used maliciously and selectively.

Ostracism is also more common in western nations.

Looks like someone got fired over this.

How long till we see the first terrorist attack against those behind these cartoons? Just wondering.

Islam needs to learn a little tolerance, I'd say, and remember that it's not the only religion on this planet - just the most destructive one.

It's not "Islam," but the people who practice, and not all of them, but some of them. Labeling an entire religion based on fanatics is ridiculous. Are we to assume all Christians are like anti-gay psycho Jim Dobson, or Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson,or Phyllis Schlafly? Of course not.

Perhaps we ought to call them Islamo-fascists and not Muslims, for there seems to be a difference.

Sadly, more and more people are getting the impression Muslims in general are violent, intolerant people, which isn't true.

OH MY GOD! Mark your calendars everybody. Remember where you were and what you were doing at the very moment that fantomas and MIB shared the same opinion. Is this a first?

For the record, I agree with you both!

It's a beautiful thing. I'm starting to tear up. There is hope for world peace after all.

I love both you guys!

[ February 02, 2006, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: UMRebel/Bucfan ]

All right, stop right there or I'll have to slap you.

But there still may yet be some hope for fantomas. Soon everyone will agree with me, and the world will be at peace.

Feel the love.

Sadly, both of these wonderful religions are being defined by very vocal and extreme minorities within their ranks who have bastardized the teachings of the founders of their respective sects.

It makes me angry that I feel uncomfortable identifying myself as a Christian because I don't want to be associated with the hateful extremist who have sadly come to represent what it means to be a Christian.

I'm sure many of my Muslim brothers and sisters feel the same way.

It's important that those of us, in both religions, who don't share these extremist anti-Christian and anti-Muslim values, speak up and refuse to let them hijack our spirituality.

That's why one needs to embrace the Force.

I don't know MIB. Starting to wonder if your starting to soften up in you OLD age. wink

Starting to see the first chinks in the armor.

Next stop, MIB singing "Kumbaya" with Cindy Sheehan at a Peace rally! Stay tuned!

[ February 02, 2006, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: UMRebel/Bucfan ]

Oh ye of such little faith in my powers of persuasion.

MIB, I believe this cartoon was published in many publications throughout Europe, not just France. Maybe if Islamist quit killing innocent people, they wouldn't have to deal with unflattering cartoons of their God. I also read in the New York Times that no one came to the defense of Jews when anti-semetic cartoons were published in a Middle-Eastern publication. Hey, what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

And all this is news why?

The French piss off everybody. They're French.

And actually it wasn't the French who started this whole thing anyway - at least not this time.

R

These Islamic protestors are misunderstanding Islam itself IMO.

By obssesing over the graven images of caricatures they are making them icons. If they want to honor Mohammed they should live their lives as he would have had them. Did Mohammed say that his image was more important than that?

Likewise the obssession with flag-burning in many nations. Live the life the flag represents.

Oh, and MIB you may want to correct the spelling in the title of the thread. I don't think you intended to have the French enraging a world wrapped in a piece of unbleached white cloth. Sounds a bit cheesy.

millerbeach, be careful that you're not guilty of making untrue claims about other religions that you don't want made of yours. You, in another thread, made it very clear that Catholics don't worship Mary but then you make a comment that Muslims see Muhammad as their God. Muslims see Muhammad as one of the Great Prophets of Allah (God). Here's a little known fact to most Christians. Muslims also see Jesus as a Great Prophet of Allah.

As far as graven images of the Prophet. The Koran (Curan) specifically forbids it. Unlike Christians, who have the same directive in our Bible, the Muslims take this command VERY seriously. That is why you never see a statue of or a picture of the face of Muhammad. That is one of the major issues that the Muslims have with this cartoon. Even if it had depicted Muhammad in a positive light it would have still been offensive to Muslims.

And as far as saying that the cartoon is not in poor taste because Muslims are doing so much killing. Frankly, I'm saddened to see this comment come from a person that I have developed a great deal of respect and admiration for, due to his previously expressed kindness and Christ-like compassion. I doubt any of us Christians would appreciate a cartoon featuring Christ dressed as the Pope torturing people in the Inquisition, or murdering families in the Crusades, or hosting the 700 Club declaring his wrath on New Orleans for Southern Decadance. That would be "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" too. And though I would find it offensive I would defend the right of someone to do it in our country. I don't believe in burning the flag either but I believe to my core in the right to do it. I even fought for that right. As someone said earlier, some people put too much emphasis on the object and not enough emphasis on what the object stands for.

I think it's very important that we educate ourselves about other cultures and religions so that we can better understand them. I'm not a Muslim (I was raised Southern Baptist) but I sought out people who were so that I could find out more about this religion that is being defined in this country by terrorists and evangelical "Christians". When I see how they define, degrade and demean gay people like me, how could I trust what they had to say about Muslims? I decided to go to the source and I was surprised by all the wonderful things that I learned. My Southern Baptist teaching told me that I shouldn't associate with these people or get to know them. They also tell people that they shouldn't associate with gay people or get to know them. You see how this works? Perhaps if more people would take what they hear second hand with a grain of salt, and instead take the time and make the effort to get their stories first hand, it would help us to avoid some of these controversies.

I do believe in freedom of the press and I abhor censorship. I believe that there should be a level of respect for people's sacred beliefs that might influence a person's decision to print something that is so offensive to the religious beliefs of so many (be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever). But I don't believe that it should be illegal to do so. The publications printed the cartoon, that was their right. Other people are protesting and making their voices heard. That is their right. In my opinion, as long as no one resorts to violence, that's the way the system should work.

[ February 04, 2006, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: UMRebel/Bucfan ]

it's not the only religion but they do have a right to protest when they feel like they're being insulted

and as for being the most destructive one--I believe that Christians have been doing it a bit longer and a bit better than Muslims

Thank you for pointing that out. I hadn't even noticed that. Happy fingers acting up again, it seems.

Anyone for Muhammad fries?

MIB, having gotten to know you and your uncanny ability to play on words, I was convinced that your misspelling was intentional. I was just too embarrassed to admit that I didn't get it.

Sorry -- but you might want to recorrect the title of the thread. The word "Danish" is an adjective -- the correct word for a citizen of Denmark is a "Dane" (being of Danish extraction, I'm picky about these things). Right now your title reads like some awful American breakfast pastry is enraging the Muslim world (what? they don't like prunes?).

I've been following this story for several months since Jylland-Posten first ran the cartoons -- and I've been wondering since: Islam forbids any picture of Mohammed, right? So therefore, who knows what he really looked like? -- and who's to say that that's really Mohammed in the Danish cartoons? It just makes no sense to me.

And I'm quite proud of the Danes for being provocative -- Denmark is facing an assimilation problem with its Muslim immigrant population -- for the most part they don't want to live by Danish customs and mores -- utmost of which is tolerance. Call their bluff.

[ February 03, 2006, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

Heh heh heh heh heh. *insert evil laugh here*

[ February 03, 2006, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

I know. The title will stand.

There's the stubborn, unbudging MIB that we've all come to know and love (or hate :mad: ). Welcome back brother, I was worried you were goin soft on us.

"Mmmmmm Daaaanish" (in the voice of Homer Simpson)

[ February 03, 2006, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: UMRebel/Bucfan ]

Actually The Simpsons is getting a bit mushy about skewering sacred cows lately, as I was reminded when watching last nights insipid camping episode. The importance of this issue (sensitivity to specific speech in the Islamic world) should not be underestimated. Should the USA/Israel alliance eventually seek a pre-emptive military deterent to Iranian nuclearization, such "protests" could contribute to the eventual "unexpected" overthrow of the irreligious dictatorship in nuclearized Pakistan.

btw ... here's a link to the face that launched a thousand jihads.
It's one of the cartoons published by the Danish newspaper.

If one wants to belong to a world with free expression, being offended from time to time goes with the territory. I may argue with people who denigrate or trash my religion, but don't become enraged. (Which is why I'm not usually abashed if I offend others.)

Hmmm, I somehow pictured him as being older than that.

[ February 03, 2006, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

DCB, I'm with you all the way on those agents provacateurs par excellence, les Danes. And the Dutch, too. Tony Blair finally got it right several months ago when he TOLD the Muslims in Britain that IF you want to live here, you do so by OUR customs, traditions and RULES - NOT your own. Western civilization has some pretty good aspects worthy of respect and preservation too.

FT, I hear where you're coming from on "all Muslims," but their own are far and few between whenever it comes to condemning the ultraviolence repeatedly issuing from their community, verbal or physical. If it really is the "religion of peace" we're force-fed it is, where are all the Muslim peacemakers? And yes, Theosdad, Xtians did their share of killing too, along with every other religion - recall the Old Testament's tallying of foreskins snipped by victorious Hebrews - but the Muslims are by FAR the most destructive religion on earth NOW!

Here is a wonderful collection of editorial cartoons from the Muslim world that exploits Jewish religious symbols and indulge in vicious stereotypes. Here is a site with various types of Nazi propaganda for comparison. Just to continue to put the issue in perspective.

[ February 03, 2006, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Do any of them use an image of the Christian Jesus or the Jewish G-d?

I think to mock or portray those images would be against Islamic law as well according to Muslims.

Take a look yourself and see if they do. BTW, Mohammed was a prophet. To Christians, Jesus is God, and to Jews, God is God. In both the latter cases, Mohammed is nowhere near the level of God.

Uhhhhh...??? Not in my church. In my church, God is God and Jesus is the Son of God.

You should extend MIB an invitation to speak at your church, maybe he could spread his wisdom and clear this up.

I did look, and can not find an image, or purported image of either of the three.
Perhaps because there is no translation that I could find, the image is there but not clear to me. If you see one, I would honestly like to know which it is. It is my understanding that "Muslims" do not like to portray any specific human image as holy, though political posters often brandish photos of friends or foes.

Not if you're a Christian. Jesus is the Son of God, part of the Trinity, but is equal to God. Jesus is Lord. Jesus is God. That is the basic tenet of the Christian faith (save for a few "out there" sects).

I posted the cartoon link to illustrate the hypocrisy of those Muslims rioting over this ridiculous issue. They're quick to bitch and moan and kill over Mohammed, but they don't have any qualms of mocking the Jewish and Christian faiths.

Opposition to the representation of human figures in Islamic art has a long history independent of modern political caricature copied most likely from the west. The distinction is one that we in the west may find difficult to understand and impossible to rationalize. But we should recognize that in the Muslim world it is still an important one. That is changing IMO, and will continue to change. But for now it remains.

It appears that this opposition has run up against freedom of the press. So the press should not be permitted to print such Islamicly offensive materials, but it's OK to print items offensive to Judaism or Christianity?

Well, it didn't take long for the wackos to start the burning.

Last night on the news, a demonstration (in London, I think) showed a Muslim protester holding a sign which read "To hell with freedom of speech!" Others held signs reading "Death to Denmark" and other hateful slogans. The irony was obvious. I can certainly understand why they were angry about the offensive cartoon, but to use their own freedom of speech to condemn freedom of speech and to promote violence is hypocritical in the extreme.

We keep hearing there are 'moderate voices' in Islam, but unfortunately they don't seem to get heard very often. One such voice belongs to Irshad Manji, a Canadian Muslim (who is also a lesbian). Her thought-provoking book The Trouble with Islam Today is well worth reading. Not surprisingly, Manji received death threats from some Muslims after the publication of her book.

By the way, MIB, thanks for the link you provided re: anti-semitic cartoons in the Muslim world.

The cartoons have run in New Zealand and the proportion of fuss being made in the rest of the world is peculiar. People seem to be unable to distinguish the spiritual and material. But this is the characteristic of fundamentalism--unwillingness to consider living in a larger context and instead dwell on each slight. Being able to practice one's religion is by freedom of speech, so I'm comfortable with the protests as well as the cartoons. But my religion includes passages about non-violence, so there's my bias.

Comfortable with protests that have burned two embassies? Comfortable with protests that have called for the execution of those behind these cartoons? Frightening.

Actually, what you just said only applies in America. Everywhere else, you have to substitute "Americans" instead of French and then it applies. wink

I think the only reason the French are hated so much by Americans is that both are proud and arrogant people and it's like a "who's got the bigger dick" contest between 2 "straight" drunk guys.


[ February 05, 2006, 07:26 AM: Message edited by: Leph75 ]

Well oh well--it turns out that this whole brouhaha probably was set into motion by and orchestrated by SAUDI ARABIA! How? The cartoons originally ran on September 30, 2005. (Did anyone else realize it was this long ago???) The newspaper that ran them issued an official apology in case they offended Muslims. 11 Muslim nations asked for an official apology from Denmark, whose PM said that because of the principle of freedom of the press he wasn't going to apologize. IN OCTOBER. There were no protests, no burning of embassies, etc.

Then, during this year's Hajj, hundreds of poor Muslims are trampled. Again. As happens EVERY SINGLE YEAR in Saudi Arabia. Every year the world hears, they're going to improve security, traffic control, etc. It doesn't happen. Hundreds die. People from across the Muslim world are disgusted. And so...Saudi Arabia fans the flames of Muslim outrage, through fatwas, against Denmark over this. And now, we have burnt embassies, worldwide enmity, and it appears to be getting worse.

I actually said to someone just the other day (did I post it on here too? I can't remember) that the United States's dear friend, Saudi Arabia, from which the majority of the 9/11 hijackers came (ZERO CAME FROM IRAQ), is one of the chief sources of radicalism in the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia has built and financed the radical Wahhabist madrassas that now exist in Pakistan (which has given up on public education), Indonesia, the southern Phillippines, Morocco, Egypt, Algeria, etc., and even in cities in Europe and the United States. (I'm not making this up.) They are command central for the most radical form of Sunni Islam, even more so than Egypt's ancient Al-Azhar University. Along with Iran, which is the beacon for Shi'ite Islam, it poses the greatest challenges for world peace.

Yet when do we EVER hear criticism of Saudi Arabia's action? The current crowd in Washington, like Clinton, W's daddy, Reagan, etc., KNOW quite well what these folks are up to, and it's gotten worse over the last 10 years. I know we need their oil, but at the same time, Saudi Arabia's failure to deal with its radical clerics and their influence over the majority of the world's Muslims (1.3 billion people) is as great a threat as almost any other enemy the US has identified.

Nah - everybody actually likes Americans; it's our current governement that scares the shit out of them.

The next time you are in Europe look around and you will see I'm right - hating the French is considered good sport.

And frankly the Danish are getting to be on my list too.

It's getting impossible to find a really good danish these days. Frankly Cherry Danish makes my forehead wrinkle, my eyebrows dip considrably, and my nostrils flare dramatically; its almost as bad as a Pineapple danish.


R

I concur with your post, fantomas, and have remained perplexed as to just what the U.S. can really do regarding Saudi Arabia. Our need for their oil is a no-brainer. But they also need our protection. If we decided to simply abandon that country, the House of Saud would fall easily and quickly to an extremist regime and that country would be a chaotic mess not too much unlike Iran presently is.

Of course, would the end product be that much different? It's almost a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" situation.

Perhaps you ought to try botox then. I hear it'll do wonders for you. wink

If our dependence on Saudi oil (20% is it?) so distorts our purported support for human rights then it is little wonder that the need for the same drug distorts Russia's and China's ability to seriously oppose the nuclearization of Iran, except for some handslapping from the UN/IAEA.

Which means when the metal hits the pedal on Iran neither will support a military solution, and Iran knows this. So where does that leave US when Iran has the bomb aimed at Israel/Europe?