Kudos to The Stranger

[lI1|1!]

drift

[foraker]

Are we going to have a Lingerie Jihad now? Sweeeet.....

[underworld]

burning down KFC's and oil of olay factories

[sexual_chocolate]

The main shortcoming of your response, and Trudeau's and Jim's is that it ignores the fact that people in Europe who crticize the more retrograde and millitant elements within the Islamic community increasingly do so at their own peril. Those who choose to mock or criticize Christianity labor under no such threat, so the context is entirely different.

 

I don't understand your statement.

First of all, how does my position ignore the peril of European criticizers of Muslims?

And secondly, why the comparison to Christians? Is this an indication of a subtle perhaps unconscious belief that indeed Christians are more evolved/civilized/mature than Muslims as a whole, and should be treated as an example towards which other religions should progress? I do find the comparison strange....

 

It's also interesting to observe this newfound sense highminded sensitivity towards religious beliefs emerge at the same moment that failing to do so would entail some personal risk.

 

So your theory is that the peeps are simply frightened? And if we weren't frightened, then we'd all become anti-muslim cartoonists for a Danish newspaper? Hmmm....Something seems amiss with this theory.

 

With regards to the religious beliefs in question, and the cartoons, I think that they were primarily directed at those who use Islam to foment violence and murder, rather than at the religion itself, which is an important distinction.

 

I think I agree with this, but the problem is that the cartoons were like Dick Cheney hunting quail. And since they were so misguided, and furthermore published by a "right-wing provocateur" newspaper....

 

You will also recall from the WSJ article which you read that the cartoons in question aroused no outrage until certain Danish Imams forged a number of cartoons which were actually calculated to generate outrage, included them in a pamphlet which contained the original cartoons, flew to the Middle East, and claimed that all of the cartoons had actually been published in Europe. The fact that this unrest didn't really take off until a number of Arab governments who were keen to demonstrate their Islamic credentials to increasingly restive populations made pains to loudly condemn them is also worth noting.

 

I think the article I read wasn't as clear as you make it out to be, and certainly not the authoritative text on the situation. I have come across information stating that indeed the newspaper was approached immediately after its publication of the cartoons, but refused to even listen to the involved parties. Because they refused to listen, the groups affected then approached the government, with the same result.

Only after meeting an unresponsive wall of (perhaps arrogant?)resistance did the groups choose the path they did (did you really conclude from the article that the unpublished cartoons were said to be published? I didn't make that conclusion, but if indeed they were, yes it's a crappy type of conduct).

 

So anyways, heres a take that somewhat differs from the WSJ take. Which is correct? I would tend to believe reality lies in the murky zone somewhere in between....

 

The last thing I'd take issue with is the notion that remaining silent and refusing to criticize and condemn the Islamists will actually benefit Muslims in Europe or anywhere else. IMO if they see entire Western societies cowed by a determined band of fanatics, they'll rightly conclude that raising their own voices in protest would be both futile and suicidal. How such a state of affairs would be beneficial to anyone is beyond me.

 

I think when a peoples feel ostracized/mistreated/oppressed/discriminated against, and see the situation as unaddressable within the parameters of the given context, naturally they will resort to more extreme measures. We have an entire world-history available to us as a learning tool for understanding this phenomenon.

The appeal, I think, of the more "extreme" elements of Islam are a natural response to what Muslims see as a world-situation which disfavors them, and the results are becoming uglier and uglier. I think your idea of simply becoming even more rigid in response to this simply accelerates the process towards a most unfortunate and predictable conclusion. It's akin to fighting fire with gasoline.

 

I think that dialogue and respect and a genuine interest in the concerns of another isn't a sign of weakness (as you seem to believe?), but of maturity and a willingness to actually work towards a solution. What do you think?

 

And what are some approaches you would favor as potential solutions to this ongoing division seemingly between the "west" and Islam?

[JayB]

Thanks for the reply SC, I'll try to answer later.

[cj001f]

Oh come one now Porter. It's not the education I'm poking fun at, it's the price you pay for what you get.

 

Thankfully most of these schools operate on a two-track system, where 1/2 of the students are mediocre rich kids that pay full tuition and subsidize the bright half that attend the schools on scholarships and grants - so the only people that should take offense are those that forked over the full 30g's a year for the privilege of attending Whitworth et al.

 

Careful there JayB, that kind of wealth envy is very Democratic...

[Dechristo]

I think your approach to conflict mitigation is appropriate for parties that are willing to negotiate in "good faith" (take the pun if you want it) and, as you stipulated, amenable to respect for each other.

 

The impasse in this conflict is at a level foundational to "good faith" and respect.

[olyclimber]

Its called capitalism. these universities will charge whatever they can get away with. and the rich parents will always pay to keep their kids away from people like me, with my outhouse education.

[JayB]

Oh come one now Porter. It's not the education I'm poking fun at, it's the price you pay for what you get.

 

Thankfully most of these schools operate on a two-track system, where 1/2 of the students are mediocre rich kids that pay full tuition and subsidize the bright half that attend the schools on scholarships and grants - so the only people that should take offense are those that forked over the full 30g's a year for the privilege of attending Whitworth et al.

 

Careful there JayB, that kind of wealth envy is very Democratic...

 

Meritocracy in action, baby. I'm all for the transfer of productive capacity into more capable hands. The "Tuition Cow" phenomenon has got to be one of the best mechanisms I've ever seen for achieving this.

[foraker]

Not to worry, once the rich kids get their hands on daddy's loot, it'll get redistributed.....all over the lawn.

[cj001f]

Meritocracy in action, baby. I'm all for the transfer of productive capacity into more capable hands. The "Tuition Cow" phenomenon has got to be one of the best mechanisms I've ever seen for achieving this.

 

Hmm, the wealthy purchasing advantage that they then retain throughout their life doesn't sound much like a meritocracy (and if you don't think a degree from an elite private university is an advantage, think again)

[Dechristo]

Thankfully most of these schools operate on a two-track system, where 1/2 of the students are mediocre rich kids that pay full tuition and subsidize the bright half that attend the schools on scholarships and grants

 

I believe he was referring to this mechanism.

[JayB]

Thankfully most of these schools operate on a two-track system, where 1/2 of the students are mediocre rich kids that pay full tuition and subsidize the bright half that attend the schools on scholarships and grants

 

I believe he was referring to this mechanism.

 

Yup.

 

I wouldn't call any of the private universities in the entire Western US elite either, with the exceptions of Caltech and Stanford. There might be some local advantage with Alumni, but that's about it. No one in the rest of the country has ever heard of any of the private universities in the PNW.

[sexual_chocolate]

I think your approach to conflict mitigation is appropriate for parties that are willing to negotiate in "good faith" (take the pun if you want it) and, as you stipulated, amenable to respect for each other.

 

The impasse in this conflict is at a level foundational to "good faith" and respect.

 

What would be your examples supportive of this conclusion?

[Jim]

If you manage to read and listen to sources other than the WSJ and Rush, you'll see the following series of events:

 

Danish paper refuses to publish Christ cartoons because they are in "poor taste and not funny" OK, I can go along with that.

 

Same paper solicits Mohemmed cartoons as an exercise in free speech. Hmmmm...see above.

 

Muslim clerics in Denmark as for audience with Danish paper editors - get snubbed. Given one and two above this seems odd.

 

Muslim clerics meet with Danish government and are diplomatically told to take a hike. At a minimum this is a bad political decision.

 

Handful of disgruntled Muslims put together a package that includes the published cartoons and others that were not published and go to the mideast to raise support and outrage. That they do. In their binder they note the distinction between what is publish and what is not - but the nonpublished cartoons were clearly included to aid their cause.

 

Clerics get word out to an ever-growing radical element that charges up the masses. Repressive regimes, war in Iraq, lack of political and economic progress, stifiling poverty, an religous fervor all feed together to make this an easy pitch. The result - violence rather than protest is not an acceptable outcome. Understandable and maybe predictable, but unacceptable.

[sexual_chocolate]

What are your sources for the above chronology of events?"

[JayB]

 

If you manage to read and listen to sources other than the WSJ and Rush, you'll see the following series of events:

 

Danish paper refuses to publish Christ cartoons because they are in "poor taste and not funny" OK, I can go along with that.

 

Same paper solicits Mohemmed cartoons as an exercise in free speech. Hmmmm...see above.

 

Muslim clerics in Denmark as for audience with Danish paper editors - get snubbed. Given one and two above this seems odd.

 

Muslim clerics meet with Danish government and are diplomatically told to take a hike. At a minimum this is a bad political decision.

 

Handful of disgruntled Muslims put together a package that includes the published cartoons and others that were not published and go to the mideast to raise support and outrage. That they do. In their binder they note the distinction between what is publish and what is not - but the nonpublished cartoons were clearly included to aid their cause.

 

Clerics get word out to an ever-growing radical element that charges up the masses. Repressive regimes, war in Iraq, lack of political and economic progress, stifiling poverty, an religous fervor all feed together to make this an easy pitch. The result - violence rather than protest is not an acceptable outcome. Understandable and maybe predictable, but unacceptable.

 

The distinction between 1 and 2 still has you stumped, eh? Do you find yourself immersed in the depths of an equally unfathomable conundrum when you have to distinguish the person that accosts you on the street and asks you for a donation, and the person that demands it at knifepoint?

[Dru]

Hey if I paint a swastika on a synagogue in Germany "as an exercise in free speech" rather than cause I'm a skinhead neoNazi, that makes it OK?

[EWolfe]

Its called capitalism. these universities will charge whatever they can get away with. and the rich parents will always pay to keep their kids away from people like me, with my outhouse education.

 

 

[foraker]

I hate to admit it, but that picture always reminds me of the toilet at the Arapiles.

[Peter_Puget]

If you manage to read and listen to sources other than the WSJ and Rush, you'll see the following series of events:

 

Danish paper refuses to publish Christ cartoons because they are in "poor taste and not funny" OK, I can go along with that.

 

Same paper solicits Mohemmed cartoons as an exercise in free speech. Hmmmm...see above. Date 9/30

 

Published in Egyptian paper in October without incident

Muslim clerics in Denmark as for audience with Danish paper editors - get snubbed. Given one and two above this seems odd.

 

Muslim clerics meet with Danish government and are diplomatically told to take a hike. At a minimum this is a bad political decision.

 

Handful of disgruntled Muslims put together a package that includes the published cartoons and others that were not published and go to the mideast to raise support and outrage. That they do. In their binder they note the distinction between what is publish and what is not - but the nonpublished cartoons were clearly included to aid their cause.

 

Oddly the BBC did claim that these "extra" drawings were actually published as did a australian news agency. Analysis of the handwriting on one of these cartoon seems consistent with the theory that the person who printed the notation was did not learn writing using our alphabet. I wonder who that would suggest.... Of course providing sources for these unpublished cartoons would remove all doubt of their origin. Has this been done?

 

Clerics get word out to an ever-growing radical element that charges up the masses. Repressive regimes, war in Iraq, lack of political and economic progress, stifiling poverty, an religous fervor all feed together to make this an easy pitch. The result - violence rather than protest is not an acceptable outcome. Understandable and maybe predictable, but unacceptable. [/color]

[sexual_chocolate]

The distinction between 1 and 2 still has you stumped, eh? Do you find yourself immersed in the depths of an equally unfathomable conundrum when you have to distinguish the person that accosts you on the street and asks you for a donation, and the person that demands it at knifepoint?

 

Since I'm equally stumped regarding the point you are trying to make, perhaps you could enlighten us with an explanation high on specificity? (The nearest I can surmise is that no "reward" or concession should be "given" by the powers that be to those who threaten violence?)

[Jim]

If you manage to read and listen to sources other than the WSJ and Rush, you'll see the following series of events:

 

Danish paper refuses to publish Christ cartoons because they are in "poor taste and not funny" OK, I can go along with that.

 

Same paper solicits Mohemmed cartoons as an exercise in free speech. Hmmmm...see above.

 

Muslim clerics in Denmark as for audience with Danish paper editors - get snubbed. Given one and two above this seems odd.

 

Muslim clerics meet with Danish government and are diplomatically told to take a hike. At a minimum this is a bad political decision.

 

Handful of disgruntled Muslims put together a package that includes the published cartoons and others that were not published and go to the mideast to raise support and outrage. That they do. In their binder they note the distinction between what is publish and what is not - but the nonpublished cartoons were clearly included to aid their cause.

 

Clerics get word out to an ever-growing radical element that charges up the masses. Repressive regimes, war in Iraq, lack of political and economic progress, stifiling poverty, an religous fervor all feed together to make this an easy pitch. The result - violence rather than protest is not an acceptable outcome. Understandable and maybe predictable, but unacceptable.

 

The distinction between 1 and 2 still has you stumped, eh? Do you find yourself immersed in the depths of an equally unfathomable conundrum when you have to distinguish the person that accosts you on the street and asks you for a donation, and the person that demands it at knifepoint?

 

Try and hop aboard the logic train here instead of straining for analogies. If they can publish one, why not hte other. Should be equal opportunity insults. Better yet, they made the correct choice the first time and should have done the same the second time.

 

Your caught in your usual trap of linking amoral results (the riots) with equally amoral sparks (publishing the cartoons). Because of the intolerant reaction this somehow justifies the publication of the cartoons. Certainly they had the right to publish the cartoons, but at the very least it was insensitive and in poor taste. They seemed to have no problem in making that decision regarding Christian values.

[JayB]

That's part of it - the other part being that part of what motivated the publication of these cartoons was the editor's sense that the death threats and assasinations that had been directed at anyone critical of Islam in the previous months and years had created an unhealthy climate of fear, where people were reluctant to criticize even the most objectionable behavior amongst the Islamists. This includes not only the terrorist attacks, but also the threats and violence directed towards public figures critical of Islam, and the ongoing contravention the law with respect to honor killings, gang-rapes of women who refuse to cover their hair, being pressed into arranged marriages, etc. I think that there was a widespread conviction that excercising self-censorship out of fear would only make matters worse, and this contributed to the publication of the cartoons. After the uproar, I think that the other newspapers which had been worried about the same issue took note of the violent reaction, had their fears concerning the danger of remaining silent confirmed, and published the cartoons in an effort to demonstrate that they would not allow anyone to use threats and violence to determine what they could and could not publish.

 

There was no such climate of fear surrounding the publication of any cartoons critical of Christianity, because there was nothing to fear - ergo the difference between one and two.

[Jim]

Oh. The ends justifies the means. How orginal.