That seems to be the message overall, regardless of possibly sly quoting on my part. "We're fine with freedom of speech, so long as it doesn't offend us." Ironic that a religion which has the name "peace" has people rioting violently over it. I must say, my sympathy for any sort of muslim based cause really decreases when things like this happen, that may be unfair, but its the case. Let them boycott, let them protest, but how about some EU sanctions for having a lack of respect for our freedom of speech and embassies??
On the subject of the rioting a friend of mine put it quite funnily last nite: 'there like the chavs that go out on a weekend to get drunk and fight. Except they don't get drunk and wear dresses' ----------------------- I personally have no problems with muslims, I work with a mixture of nationalities and religions at work and the muslim guys are some of the nicest. These extremists give a bad name to a normally peaceful religion
News just in: Due to the boycotting of Danish products in the Middle East Carlsberg are expect to go into administration sometime this week. Companies selling pork products are expected to follow suit shortly after.
Meh. Relations between Muslim and Christian communities have been on a knife-edge for ages. We have had riots in France, now riots over cartoons... I think it is all a reflection of the serious disenchantment over what is going on in the Middle East. Beirut, Palestine/Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran... there is not a single spot there where Western (predominantly Christian and Jewish) and Middle Eastern (predominantly Muslim) interests haven't clashed with each other in the most spectacular ways, and aren't doing so on an ongoing basis. One side is as bad as the other, and the respective parties feeding this dynamic are as fundamentalist as the other and as tied up in their own narrowminded greedy interests dressed up as religious principles. Each side accuses the other of pissing all over their way of life. Each side is unable to think outside their own cultural frame of reference. Each side is too tied up in their own personal greed to consider whether co-operation on mutual goals might be better than ruthless prosecution of one's own. This is just Crusades v1.1 --not much has changed since Medieval times (again: not civilisation, just barbarism with mobile phones). Like then lust for power and wealth was dressed up in religious principles to justify atrocity. Like then, ordinary innocents who have no spiritual ambitions beyond just raising their families and making a living suffer the consequences, or are herded like sheep onto the battlefield to do the dying for someone else's interests. Religion is an opiate for the masses, alright --one that dulls thinking, blurs vision and comes with 'roid rage. But do not think that other belief system supporting in-group/out-group distinction would not do the trick just as well.
Personally I feel that the cartoons are unjust, and although it is clear this board in general feels hostile towards religons, I think this extract from a Sunday Times article sums up my feelings perfectly...
Ok, it was harsh on the Muslims, but how many times has Jesus been laught about? Do we torch every embassy for that? Sorry to say it, but to me Islam is an agressive religion... And them Imam's should think more before they set up their followers to do such deeds... To me, they (the Imam's) are responsable for this, and they should bear the consequences. I know talking about religion is a sensitive subject, but we all must admit that 85% of the newsitems these days are coming from riots or bombings in Muslim country's... It's wrong that we enforce our way of life onto them, but what they do is - even more - wrong. We live in a society where we talk our problems out, not one where we torch Embassies because of a comic, because that is just what it is, some strip to laugh about.
I disagree with your point there Nexxo, I wouldn't say this is so much a Christian Vs. Muslim thing, as a libertarian Vs. Muslim thing. Christians seem, for the most part, to agree with the islamic POV that this was wrong, and shouldn't be allowed. I've got no problems with people saying its wrong, thats fair enough, the cartoons were intended to shock no doubt, I have a problem with people saying they shouldn't be allowed. Believing in an invisible man in the sky does not give you the right to place anything you value above criticism. Of course if anyone feels it does, let me just say now that I find other people writing or typing anything offensive in the extreme, and if you do it you're mocking my religion - I will riot, because thats whats grown ups do when their invisible sky man is made fun of.
This is so very childish, personally, I think the Middle East has jsut learned of the enormous power they now possess, both in oil and crazy people willing to blow themselves up. They are taking a stand for the thing they believe in becuase they can. Although, it only takes 20% of the population to do 80% of the damage.
An image from the beeb, I hotlinked it, but I pay for the bandwidth, so I guess I'm allowed Intresting little placard there, which shows the feelings of the more extremist muslims in the world. Concerningly though, that picture was taken in London, and yet no arrests were made in that entire protest, which had a variety of other placards, some of which you can see, were pretty much inciting violence.
Actually I was saying it is a Western powers vs. Eastern powers thing, the respective religions really just being a coincidental and convenient distinction for the different parties to define their in-group/out-group differences around, to create a blind allegiance amongst their followers. "Christianity" in this case is purely a denominational category, so to speak. @ alter-ego: although the Sunday Times makes a good point, I agree with specofdust that religion (or much more accurately, people's interpretation of it) is not automatically above criticism or mockery. Recently we had the Pope saying on homosexuality: Now if the Chief of police had said that, he would have to resign. If any major politician had said that, his political career would be over. If this view had been endorsed by a newspaper or TV, heads would roll on the Editorial panel (figuratively speaking). Yet the Pope happily gets away with it and people think it is perfectly normal. What is it that makes many religious groups think that they have the absolute moral high ground, and the right to say whatever they want whilst others have not? Christians protested vehemently against "Jerry Springer, the Opera" (a play which, let's face it, can hardly be taken seriously) and "The Last Tempation of Jesus Christ" (the most realistic and respectful depiction of Jesus in my opinion --guess they ought to have actually seen it first); there were Sikh riots in Birmingham against the play "Behzti", which involved sexual abuse and murder occurring in a Sikh temple (again, did they actually see the play?). Now we have protesters saying that heads should roll, the London Underground bombings deserve a re-run and Europe should have its own 9/11. Because of a few cartoons that most protesters probably would never even have been aware of if it wasn't for the hype generated around them. Religion, faith, philosophy; they are supposed to inform the way you think, not dictate how everybody else should. They are supposed to enrich your life, not constrain those of others. If people are ready to condemn each other as depraved and kill each other over a bunch of frigging cartoons, religious interpretation has taken a wrong turn somewhere.
Tbh the newspapers that printed and reprinted the cartoons should really shoulder a lot of the blame. Yes they have the right to but surely some common sense at a sensitive time like this could be excercised.
with sh*t like this, the end soloution will never be easy nor will it be simple or without any retrubution. personally i cant wait till the world kills itself this year.
I can understand perfectly well why Muslims are offended by it, I'm not one to say 'pfft its only a cartoon, get over it' as the content is undoubtably going to offend them. Just because someone is offensive though doesn't mean it should cease to exist and be banned! This is where the protests to me cross the line, the same goes for the Sikhs who rioted in Birmingham or Christians offended by the Jerry Springer show as mentioned by Nexxo. People have the right to take offence at such things, sure, but a bit of tolerance and the ability to turn the other cheek on their part wouldn't go amiss. If I'm expected to tolerate their religious beliefs and cultural practices, questionable and alien as they sometimes are IMHO, I expect them to respect my right to freedom of expression - I don't expect them to like everything that comes from that freedom, but they should still respect it. As for the placard waving hoards who marched in London, I hope they're all arrested - comments such as 'Europe will pay, Bin Laden is the way' and 'Behead those who insult Islam' are clearly incitement to terrorism and murder in my eyes, completely unacceptable regardless of the offence caused by these cartoons in my mind.
I say pull all american troops all around the world out and watch these ****ers eat eachother alive. Let America revert to our attitude up untill 1941.
Will, On this side of the pond they would be arrested. Freedom of speech/expression has been upheld numerous times in our um...'excellent' judicial system, however the rulings have said over and over again that if you are inciting violence, or the clear purpose of your expression is to instigate unlawful conduct, then you are no longer covered by the First Amendment. I don't know what it's like in Britain, but I'd hope the same standards apply.
