sexual_chocolate Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 The right to freedom of thought and expression... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers. -- Vatican statement re Mohammed cartoons Can you imagine this quote coming out of the Vatican a few hundred years ago? A quote protecting the religious sensitivities of Muslims? I wonder about the depth of discussion there before this statement was released, and what religious/political considerations, if any, informed it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Realize that statement is from a church that was responsible for the massacre of millions in the past 1000 years. All to protect the "sentiments" of believers. So it goes. The last thing believers of all faiths want is meddlers opining the possibility that the whole structure upon which they rest their lives might be based in fantasy. I don't know if the cartoons in question were really working/offending at this level; seemed more that they dislocated any context, taking stereotypical mundane misunderstandings of Arab/west relations, and furthered that misunderstanding. And again I must say that I am not supporting the reaction of the Muslim world (perhaps Jim above hits it right?), but the metacontext certainly allows for the understanding of the reaction, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Good lord, don't you tire of yourself? Don't you tire of hammering away with the same cynical contemptuous tone masquerading as "humor"? And CBS, you say that Muslims have no right to commit crimes because of the caricaturization and "defacement" of their prophet Muhammed, and yes I would agree, but does not that standard apply to others as well? Does it not apply to the execution of, on many counts, an illegal war in Iraq? Does it not apply to the west's disregard of UN Resolutions 194, 242, 446, and 3236 regarding the west-created state of Israel? Does it not apply to a generations old oppression, manipulation, dictator-propping western approach towards the Arab world in general? Some say I may be reaching with the above comparisons, but I think it's important to understand the context in which any event occurs, NOT as a way to excuse any given conduct, but as a way to perhaps further one's understanding (if understanding is one's goal). If understanding is your goal, there's a great front-page article in today's WSJ concerning the precise context in which this situation occured. It doesn't stretch back to Hulagu's decimation of Babylonia, or the implosion of trading routes after the Euros found a sea-route to the far-East, the Moors'ejection from Spain courtesy of the battle of Grenada, the Ottoman's the battle of Vienna, and other key-milestones o' stagnation and decline that paved the way for colonization by some of their former subjects - so it may not be complete enough for your tastes, but it does quite a bit to explain the time lag between the cartoon's original publication and the Islamist pep-rallies that we're witnessing now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 I was really busy when that was going on so got hopelessly behind. I scanned it and was appalled by the number of apologists for muslim mayhem. Sure they have a right to be offended. No they have no right to commit crimes just because they are upset. I don't go smash people's stuff every time I get mad! You have just joined Dave_Shuldt as the only poster to achieve a negative score in my "Reflexive Western Self Loathing Sweepstakes." Very dissapointing so far, as Sexual_Chocolate and others who had potential scored goose-eggs with their entries. There are two clear frontrunners at the moment, but seeing as how Jim has yet to submit his entry, any final judgement would be premature. Seems simple. If you don't like the cartoon, don't read it or send a letter to the editor, or protest peacefully. Unfortunately I think this is another case of political oportunitism by a minority. Though I'm not sure of the orginal point of the contest: draw cartoons of Mohammed to test boundaries - I didn't think they were so provacative, but I'm not Muslim. Bottom line - protest, boycott, but threatening life and property is quite out of line. Negative score for Jimbo, too. How the mighty have fallen... Edit: upon closer review allocating the bulk of the responsibilty for the incident to the Danish newspaper in question overrides the sentiments that Jim closed this statement with, so I will have to reconsider and grant this entry a positive score. Not a contender for first place, but a solid effort nonetheless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Good lord, don't you tire of yourself? Don't you tire of hammering away with the same cynical contemptuous tone masquerading as "humor" I'm curious what the conservative equivalent to a coffehouse, beret and latte is. JayB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 One of those old-school Men's social clubs with the green desk lamps, leather-chairs, scotch - and complimentary copies of the WSJ on the table. Maybe after we buy a home my wife will let me build a small replica in a garage someday.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Enough of you self-centered goons bashing each other--back to the Danes! You know, the only time Chuck Norris had his ass kicked was by a Viking. Little know fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Enough of you self-centered goons bashing each other--back to the Danes! Hamlet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra_Commander Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 I remember this famous line from Delta Force Chuck Norris: Alas poor Yorick. I ROUNDHOUSED THAT NOT-FUNNY JESTER INTO THE BOG. NOT TO BE, BITCH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Enough of you self-centered goons bashing each other--back to the Danes! Hamlet? CatchOTD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra_Commander Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Good lord, don't you tire of yourself? Don't you tire of hammering away with the same cynical contemptuous tone masquerading as "humor"? You know what I hate most? Rhetorical questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Hitting a little too close? It wasn't rhetorical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra_Commander Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Just a joke. See, I was complaining about rhetorical questions with a rhetor....nevermind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 lampoon your world into righteous jihad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Me Ow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted February 7, 2006 Author Share Posted February 7, 2006 I didn't really intend for this thread to be a clone of an existing thread. Oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Hitting a little too close? It wasn't rhetorical. Yes comrade, 'tis with a weary hand and a heavy heart that I labor onwards... P.S. I can scan that WSJ article and e-mail it to you if you can't bear the thought of granting your patronage to the capitalist overlords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 P.S. I can scan that WSJ article and e-mail it to you if you can't bear the thought of granting your patronage to the capitalist overlords. I realize that you like the feel of newsprint gently baked by the butler so the ink doesn't soil your hands, but there is this thingy called the intraweb and the WSJ is on it! PS - isn't it about time you post the Americans & leisure time article from the Economist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 If understanding is your goal, there's a great front-page article in today's WSJ concerning the precise context in which this situation occured. It doesn't stretch back to Hulagu's decimation of Babylonia, or the implosion of trading routes after the Euros found a sea-route to the far-East, the Moors'ejection from Spain courtesy of the battle of Grenada, the Ottoman's the battle of Vienna, and other key-milestones o' stagnation and decline that paved the way for colonization by some of their former subjects - so it may not be complete enough for your tastes, but it does quite a bit to explain the time lag between the cartoon's original publication and the Islamist pep-rallies that we're witnessing now. I'm saddened that my subscription to WSJ ran out, but the high endorsement will send me to the nearest news-stand, since it's actually a rag I enjoy reading from time to time. And I'm sure that by using what's your bro's name Occam's(!) razor to decide which factors are more important: Something that happened a couple of generations ago at most and is still actively in violation of law and Resolution, or centuries ago and rather abstruse for most, one will not need to refer to the ol' Absurdio Reductum, but thanks for putting it into play! (did you see El Randle throw that TD pass to what's-his-name? Unexpected!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Yet they are true to their creed and require users to pay for access to most of their content. Perhaps a blogger has cut-and-pasted it somewhere for distribution to the teeming masses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra_Commander Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 the Economist like getting a weekly subscription to copy machine maintenance manuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 P.S. I can scan that WSJ article and e-mail it to you if you can't bear the thought of granting your patronage to the capitalist overlords. I realize that you like the feel of newsprint gently baked by the butler so the ink doesn't soil your hands, but there is this thingy called the intraweb and the WSJ is on it! PS - isn't it about time you post the Americans & leisure time article from the Economist? That was a good one. Maybe you can share the good news yourself. I think part of the answer to the conundrum raised by the article is the fact that most people take a great deal of pride in the extent of their overwork, and overburdening, and tend to inflate their own numbers when reporting them. Protestantism, salvation by works, look what ye have wrought... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Just a joke. See, I was complaining about rhetorical questions with a rhetor....nevermind. Well you're all evil and a smartass and shit, and I'm kinda sensitive sometimes, but did you notice that I further responded with what could be construed as a rhetorical question? Pretty evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra_Commander Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Touche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 If understanding is your goal, there's a great front-page article in today's WSJ concerning the precise context in which this situation occured. It doesn't stretch back to Hulagu's decimation of Babylonia, or the implosion of trading routes after the Euros found a sea-route to the far-East, the Moors'ejection from Spain courtesy of the battle of Grenada, the Ottoman's the battle of Vienna, and other key-milestones o' stagnation and decline that paved the way for colonization by some of their former subjects - so it may not be complete enough for your tastes, but it does quite a bit to explain the time lag between the cartoon's original publication and the Islamist pep-rallies that we're witnessing now. I'm saddened that my subscription to WSJ ran out, but the high endorsement will send me to the nearest news-stand, since it's actually a rag I enjoy reading from time to time. And I'm sure that by using what's your bro's name Occam's(!) razor to decide which factors are more important: Something that happened a couple of generations ago at most and is still actively in violation of law and Resolution, or centuries ago and rather abstruse for most, one will not need to refer to the ol' Absurdio Reductum, but thanks for putting it into play! (did you see El Randle throw that TD pass to what's-his-name? Unexpected!) That's one of the interesting things about all of the reading that I did on the Middle East/Islam is that both Western and non-western authors suggested that the these events still plays a significant role in their collective memory. Maybe that's why hamas or some other such outfit has exhumed the reconquest of Andelusia as a theme in their elementary-school offerings. Related article below: http://www.slate.com/id/1008411/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.