Bowing Down to Islam (again)

[LaxRef]

If it helps, I for one am disappointed that they would choose to not run that comic -hardly offensive in my mind.
I just saw a Curb Your Enthusiasm episode with a woman in a burkah - it was hilarious! I watched the credits to see who played the woman - it was Moon Unit Zappa.

Like, omigod!

[Beta]

"If you give a mouse a cookie..."

Translation: If all someone has to do is threaten violence to get their way....they will continue to do so.

Solution: Don't give in, similar to the basic universal stance on not complying with a hostage-takers' demands.

[Zeuslax]

I also didn't find the cartoon offensive. there was an inclination that last Sunday's carton was a re-run and that kind of offended me. Just to be fair there are other topics that we do not address in our society as well.

I highly recommend that the people upset with the column not being printed start a thread here making fun of muslims, Allah, their traditions, and the berka.

Let's start with this..........

The Danish newspaper editor who enraged Muslims by printing a cartoon has apologized and said, it was never his intention to upset the Muslim people.

His new book "Allah is a &#$% " goes on sale tomorrow.

[Beta]

I highly recommend that the people upset with the column not being printed start a thread here making fun of muslims, Allah, their traditions, and the berka.

Like Sonny said, you could have a cartoon showing a cross in a jar of urine, or show one of the INFINITE anti-Jew cartoons in the middle east...and that's ok. But simply showing a muslim (doesn't have to be offensive) in a cartoon is "call for an uproar" and leads to many the commonly peaceful protests http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,399177,00.html

It seems to me that people just wanna go against the grain and defend only Islam...when Christianity, Judaism, Hindi, Buddhism, etc are all fair game to be made fun of....which is quite a load of hypocritical BS.

I'm pretty sure the "peaceful protesters" already did fine job making fun of themselves when they had violent protests...against a Danish cartoon showing them as violent.

[sohotrightnow]

INFINITE anti-Jew cartoons in the middle east

Who cares about what cartoons they print in the Middle East? This is America, right?

[Beta]

INFINITE anti-Jew cartoons in the middle east

Who cares about what cartoons they print in the Middle East? This is America, right?

Besides an attempt to be un-America-centric...it's relevant because the middle east are the people complaining about a political cartoon that simply shows muhammad, or a Islamic woman...but something like this is ok for them to publish:



On the left: "Islam" is caricatured;
On the right: the "Western media" bows in front of a toilet bowl, labeled "Zionism," from which fire, labeled "the Holocaust," emanates. Behind this is the devil, a menorah and the Star of David.

Imagine if America published a politcal cartoon of a stereotyped Muslim man praying to a giant toilet labeled "terrorism" with flames coming out of it with muhammad up top in a statue that's integrated with a picture of the devil with flames spewing out of it with the flames labeled "the crusades".

[laxfan25]

Imagine if America published a politcal cartoon of a stereotyped Muslim man praying to a giant toilet labeled "terrorism" with flames coming out of it with muhammad up top in a statue that's integrated with a picture of the devil with flames spewing out of it with the flames labeled "the crusades".

You're painting with an awfully big brush there. The last I heard, "America" wasn't publishing anything. Cartoons are the work of one person's mind, published by media outlets of various persuasions - and this is true around the world. Perhaps the Islamist cartoon reflects the stereotype that the media in the US is predominantly controlled by executives of the Jewish faith, and that U.S. media coverage of issues like the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is heavily biased towards Israel. Yes, it's stereotypical, but so aren't many of the attitudes expressed in the U.S. about Islam.

I am a big proponent of freedom of the press, and the US is one of the better adherents to that principle, Our civil liberties are very highly valued, and that is why many people have come out in opposition to some of the overreaching that is occuring under items like the Patriot Act, and who may be resentful when others may claim that "you must favor the terrorists". No, they may feel that we have plenty of tools at our disposal to fight this battle without giving up our freedom in the name of security. After all, there was a lot of pre-9/11 intel out there that was simply ignored by the CIA and FBI - adding on tons more of data about our citizens won't correct mistakes like that.

Perhaps the Washington Post decision (which I diagree with) was based on a belief that it was encouraging a stereotyped view of Islam, and they are trying to recognize the vital distinction that we must draw between being against violent religious fundamentalism and a vibrant religion. People have interpreted the Bible in ways that have supported extremism, which is wrong, just as others have done so with the Koran. Neither one is legitimate. If we fail to recognize that distinction we are doomed to failure in any attempt to "win" the battle against Islamic fundamentalists. When the "average" Muslim feels that it is his religion that is under attack, he is not going to come down on the side of the U.S., just as we would feel the same about someone who attacks Christianity because it gave rise to Rudolph, McVie or the Crusades. ("Hey, that's not ME! I'm a GOOD Christian!")

As I've said before, there is a palpable sense here in the States that anyone who looks Arab is to be feared, and is treated as the "new nigger". This leads to the question - what are we fighting for in Iraq, if we don't even like the people we are supposedly trying to bring democracy to?

[Campbell]

Imagine if America published a politcal cartoon of a stereotyped Muslim man praying to a giant toilet labeled "terrorism" with flames coming out of it with muhammad up top in a statue that's integrated with a picture of the devil with flames spewing out of it with the flames labeled "the crusades".

I am imagining the awesomeness of that right now.

[Beta]

You're painting with an awfully big brush there. The last I heard, "America" wasn't publishing anything. Cartoons are the work of one person's mind, published by media outlets of various persuasions - and this is true around the world

Holy crap, you know what I meant...(an American newspaper)....as there is no "America! The Magazine" or a way that a landmass can publish a cartoon.

Back from planet tangent....I know exactly what the political cartoon meant...I simply Googled the topic, and picked the first cartoon from the first website I found and already found something that would cause massive killing across the Islam world if the cartoon was reversed. That was my point. Hypocrisy at it's very best. If I (as a person, not as humans in general) decided to publish a cartoon of Muhammad saying "killing people and threatening violence in my name makes you a hypocrite"....there would still be riots, killing, burning, etc etc....and that is indeed, pathetic.

The ratio of MODERN DAY Christian terrorism is so uneven with MODERN DAY Islamic terrorism that it's apples to oranges. While moderately comparable in terms of actions...they are incomparable in terms of "they do it, we do it...we all do it so it's ok!" theory. Abortion Clinic Bombings and the Crusades are indeed examples of Christian terrorism...but the difference is...one has to dig through piles of history to come up with relevancy than the handful of abortion clinic deaths...whereas someone can just go to CNN.com and find out today's suicide bombings in a petting zoo, or something comparable.

[laxfan25]

Holy crap, you know what I meant...(an American newspaper)....as there is no "America! The Magazine" or a way that a landmass can publish a cartoon.

I was just pointing out that this was one Middle Eastern cartoon and your counter was imagine if America published... as if these are monolithic institutions on both sides.

Back from planet tangent....I know exactly what the political cartoon meant...I simply Googled the topic, and picked the first cartoon from the first website I found and already found something that would cause massive killing across the Islam world if the cartoon was reversed. That was my point. Hypocrisy at it's very best. If I (as a person, not as humans in general) decided to publish a cartoon of Muhammad saying "killing people and threatening violence in my name makes you a hypocrite"....there would still be riots, killing, burning, etc etc....and that is indeed, pathetic.

That is a hypothetical stretch, (one I would disagree with) to say a cartoon depicting Muhammad preaching his gospel would incite killings. That is quite a bit different than the tone of the Danish cartoons that did incite violence around the world, one of which depicted Muhammad with a bomb and lit fuse in his turban, and none of which portrayed him in a favorable light. Ironically the point of the series was to make a point in the debate about criticism of Islam and self-censorship - the same as this thread. The initial protestations from the Danish Muslim community were mild (maybe posted as the Outrage of the Day) and there was no violence. Certain radical clerics with their own agenda in other countries used the topic to incent their followers, most of whom probably never even saw the cartoon but were harangued that the prophet has been blasphemed and they were P.O.'d. Devout followers of Islam take their religion very seriously, much more so than I - and again I am pleased to be in a country with separation of church and state, and object to attempts by certain groups to try to lower those barriers. I certainly don't condone the killings, but understand the deeply held beliefs that are their foundation - and warn that we need to be cognizant of that fact in our international relations and presentation and continue to fight any intrusion of religion into political life here.

The ratio of MODERN DAY Christian terrorism is so uneven with MODERN DAY Islamic terrorism that it's apples to oranges. While moderately comparable in terms of actions...they are incomparable in terms of "they do it, we do it...we all do it so it's ok!" theory. Abortion Clinic Bombings and the Crusades are indeed examples of Christian terrorism...but the difference is...one has to dig through piles of history to come up with relevancy than the handful of abortion clinic deaths...whereas someone can just go to CNN.com and find out today's suicide bombings in a petting zoo, or something comparable.

My point is that terrorism in the name of religion is not the province of only one religion, and I'm not saying at all that just because both do it - it's OK. I'm saying that before you group all followers of Islam as wild-eyed fanatics that are quite different than you and I - realize that a group of our European relatives managed to exterminate 6 million people of different faith while much of the country sat back - and they were not Muslim, but Christian. Bad things can happen in the name of religion, along with the vast good it does as well.
Islamic fundamentalism is certainly on the rise, and we would be well served to pursue a course that attempts to moderate or counter it, rather than inflame it.

[Beta]

It doesn't happen in America because our freedom of speech only applies as long as the minority is not offended...the majority is fair grounds for anything, along with the jewish minority..they're ok to make fun of too.

That is a hypothetical stretch, (one I would disagree with) to say a cartoon depicting Muhammad preaching his gospel would incite killings. That is quite a bit different than the tone of the Danish cartoons that did incite violence around the world, one of which depicted Muhammad with a bomb and lit fuse in his turban, and none of which portrayed him in a favorable light.

There actually was a depiction of muhammad on South Park years back and it wasn't a big deal (a more recent episode was censored). But whenever the radicals decide to be violent and people in charge (of anything) cater to them...they'll continue to do it because they'll get their way. 75,000 violent protesters in Pakistan is quite a lot for a friggin cartoon. So a PICTURE didn't favor someone...is that cause to murder children? Definitely not.

Imagine if Israel decided to have 75,000 violent protesters whenever an Anti-Semitic cartoon is posted on...oh...I dunno...the Arab-European League's website (it happens)....or whenever one is published in a middle eastern country...then I guess they'd have to kick the crap out of the entire middle east...again.... ::yawn::

realize that a group of our European relatives managed to exterminate 6 million people of different faith while much of the country sat back - and they were not Muslim, but Christian

Calling the Nazi's Christian is a whole new topic. I am sure some more religious people would rather take a stab at that one. They weren't waltzing down Avenue de Friedland chanting "Praise Jesus"...they were saluting Hitler, their leader. The nazi's obliteration of the jews were indeed religious-based...but they were based on the jew's religion and not their own on an individual basis. Don't ask Iran's president about the Nazi's...according to him the holocaust never happened.

You can't really take whatever the dominant religion of a country and saying that they were [dominant religion] fanatics....and saying that an army of soldiers that all chant "allu akbar", have endless propaganda campaigns about Islam, ridiculous amounts of anti-(any other non-muslim-religion) statements, and call their militant branches names that are directly Islamic-inspired. You can't just take dominant characteristics of a society and translate that across the board to make it look like it's all cupcakes and butterflies over there in the sand.

If that were the case, our current armed forces are white Christian females...going by that logic. To say what is going on in the middle east is not a religious war on their part (not ours), would IMHO be incorrect.

[laxfan25]

It doesn't happen in America because our freedom of speech only applies as long as the minority is not offended...the majority is fair grounds for anything, along with the jewish minority..they're ok to make fun of too.

Yep, the poor put-upon white American male. It's one thing that the deck is stacked in their favor, it reeks when they claim to be the victims of discrimination. Last time I looked at the executive profiles of the corporate world, the makeup of the state and federal legislatures, the courts, etc., I think you'll find their interests are being well taken care of.

So a PICTURE didn't favor someone...is that cause to murder children? Definitely not.

No disagreement there.

realize that a group of our European relatives managed to exterminate 6 million people of different faith while much of the country sat back - and they were not Muslim, but Christian

Calling the Nazi's Christian is a whole new topic. I am sure some more religious people would rather take a stab at that one. They weren't waltzing down Avenue de Friedland chanting "Praise Jesus"...they were saluting Hitler, their leader. The nazi's obliteration of the jews were indeed religious-based...but they were based on the jew's religion and not their own on an individual basis. Don't ask Iran's president about the Nazi's...according to him the holocaust never happened.

My point was that extremism, either for or against a religion, is not the exclusive province of radical Islamics - it can happen anywhere. Holocaust deniers rile me, whether it's the wacky Iranian president or David Dukes in La.

You can't really take whatever the dominant religion of a country and saying that they were [dominant religion] fanatics....and saying that an army of soldiers that all chant "allu akbar", have endless propaganda campaigns about Islam, ridiculous amounts of anti-(any other non-muslim-religion) statements, and call their militant branches names that are directly Islamic-inspired. You can't just take dominant characteristics of a society and translate that across the board to make it look like it's all cupcakes and butterflies over there in the sand.

You lost me here a little.

To say what is going on in the middle east is not a religious war on their part (not ours), would IMHO be incorrect.

I would agree in fact it is a religious/civil war, one that we foolishly unleashed because our leaders failed to heed the warnings of what would transpire if we invaded. The problem is to many people it appears that it IS a religious war on our part, whether it is true or not. Now we are stuck in the middle of a dodgeball game played with IED's and RPG's. It has led to a situation of strange bedfellows - we are on the verge of war with Iran because we don't want them to have dominant influence in Iraq once we pull out. Their main proxy in Iraq is SCIRI. One of SCIRI's main opponents in Iraq (who should be our friend) is... the anti-American cleric Mohktada al Sadr. Since they're both Shia, it is actually a power struggle for eventual control of the oil-rich south of Iraq. So I guess we could turn to the opponents of the Shiites - the Sunnis, who are principally backed by Saudi Arabia - our great ally. Of course, what is the most extreme Sunni group - al Qaeda! Where did 3/4's of the 9/11 hijackers come from? Saudi Arabia. Why did we invade Iraq? Because Saddam was in bed with bin Laden.
Yes, it's a fine mess we've gotten ourselves into - with no end in sight. What I will assert is that whether we pull out next year or in 10 years the result will be exactly the same - an internal civil war backed by neighboring countries with strong interests in the proceedings. The final result will be the breakup of Iraq into regions controlled by Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites, so let's get it done now and get the hell out of there. One argument that I will dispute is that we have to stay there to prevent "the terrorists" from coming here. The vast, vast majority of those engaged in warfare in Iraq couldn't give a rat's rear about the US, outside of getting them out of their country. The small percentage of foreign fighters have just been taking advantage of the nice shooting gallery we've set up - and are relishing the opportunity to take shots at Americans. I'm sick of the lives we continue to sacrifice for no good reason. If we had only taken care of the business we should have in the fall of '01/Spring '02 we could have avoided this mess.

[Beta]

Awesome post! Definitely some kudos to that one.

I'm sick of the lives we continue to sacrifice for no good reason.

I agree...I guess the people in charge are scared that no oil means we're all driving.....

[GrayBear]

"If you give a mouse a cookie..."

Translation: If all someone has to do is threaten violence to get their way....they will continue to do so.

Solution: Don't give in, similar to the basic universal stance on not complying with a hostage-takers' demands.

Variation on a theme:

http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2007/09/25/News/Ui.To.Reimburse.Missed.Meals.During.Ramadan-2988949.shtml

[everythingwentnumb]

"If you give a mouse a cookie..."

Translation: If all someone has to do is threaten violence to get their way....they will continue to do so.

Solution: Don't give in, similar to the basic universal stance on not complying with a hostage-takers' demands.

Variation on a theme:

http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2007/09/25/News/Ui.To.Reimburse.Missed.Meals.During.Ramadan-2988949.shtml

Unless you're required to eat three meals a day, that's a really stupid proposition. If you're gonna fast, FAST. Don't tell people they have to pay for you to observe your religious beliefs.