It's a peaceful religion

[Stonehead]

Boring.

 

Maybe it's not so much the religion as much as the type of thinking and behavior that you so well illustrate.

[tvashtarkatena]

Oh, I'm perfectly comfortable with my level of Right Action to preserve your right to believe in the Great Big Fuzzy Kitty.

 

 

 

 

[billcoe]

Is it too sinister and conspiratorial to propose that the intelligence organizations are the movers behind the scenes, that we are pawns whose perceptions are influenced for larger purposes? Is it just coincidence that the Nigerian would be bomber serves as the impetus to escalate the war in Yemen and to initiate further restrictive measures here? A useful idiot?

 

The National Security Archive at George Mason University

 

We could go with that. Perhaps, for discussion of this case in question, the cartoonist works for or is an agent of the CIA then? He drew the pic of Mohammed to inflame the world and get Joe average to fear the Islamic world so that we would have carte blanch to proceed as we wanted over there. I suppose we also proceed to blame all similar things on CIA if we tried and worked at it hard enough.

 

I'm not saying it's impossible, this stuff happens. Certainly in this case, the Nigerian very strangely did get a pass in showing his passport at the control office in the Netherlands, and there appeared to be some other shenanigans which the passengers noticed and publicized.

[tvashtarkatena]

Paging Dr. Kevbone!

[Bug]

http://www.colostate.edu/Orgs/MSA/find_more/islart.html

[JayB]

So, we’re indicting the whole body of ideas that comprise the religion and its entire legion of followers due to some high profile reactions to a political cartoon? Satire is a great way to send a political message but at what point does it mutate from being relatively benign to becoming socially malignant? I would ask if there are hands that seek to manipulate the scenes in the world play.

 

Are the initiatory acts intentional? Not that the unequal response is justified but if the reaction can be predicted with some certainty, then isn’t the initiator also guilty of a provocative act? Is it criminal? For instance, is it criminal to participate in a conspiracy to incite a riot?

 

Sure, in a Machiavellian sense, religion is a vehicle that propagates ideas which can be manipulated or corrupted to serve a purpose which appears antithetical to the general good that’s inculcated by the social body characteristic of a religion. So, the question becomes can we discern the purpose behind the hands that manipulate the scenes or are these simple intentional acts of small purpose that more or less are random?

 

Is it too sinister and conspiratorial to propose that the intelligence organizations are the movers behind the scenes, that we are pawns whose perceptions are influenced for larger purposes? Is it just coincidence that the Nigerian would be bomber serves as the impetus to escalate the war in Yemen and to initiate further restrictive measures here? A useful idiot?

 

The National Security Archive at George Mason University

 

Are you honestly suggesting that anyone in the West who wants to exercise their hard-won secular freedoms vis-a-vis Islam is guilty of incitement if they violate whatever arbitrary set of religious taboos that violent fanatics deem worthy of enforcing?

 

 

[JosephH]

After Americans Visit, Uganda Weighs Death for Gays

Of course, there's nothing dangerous about American christian fundamentalists.

[Stonehead]

Are you honestly suggesting that anyone in the West who wants to exercise their hard-won secular freedoms vis-a-vis Islam is guilty of incitement if they violate whatever arbitrary set of religious taboos that violent fanatics deem worthy of enforcing?

 

The simple answer would be an unqualified “no” if you put the question to the specific context of violent radicalism that you stated.

 

But there are people who believe that the cause justifies the means. I know you don’t believe in capitulation so what should be the proper response, not in general but as applicable to several particular cases?

 

Cases have to exist where there should be constraints on the exercise of liberty versus the maintenance of the general good, even within the juxtaposition of Secularism and Theism. Like, for instance, the use of the First Amendment to promote what many consider to be pornography especially within the context of its social effects on young minds. It’s a special case, of course, since it also involves community standards but it is a moral issue intertwined with religion. And we do regulate morality with laws especially involving property and against the unjust taking of life.

 

Also, I believe in our particular rule of law (with its attendant belief in natural rights) but when can it be harmful? We believe our values are superior but regardless of that, is it right to insert our values directly into another system to provoke a revolution in dominant ideas?

 

So, should we see the breakdown of traditional forms to be replaced by a secular model, the progression of which might follow something along the lines of the Russian example---from Czarist to Communist to Oligarchy?

 

Just asking...

 

 

 

[Bug]

Try visualizing the context as being totally local and face to face.

You know them. They know you.

Your kids go to the same school, wives talk at the grocery store, etc.

Would we be willing to publicly display a blatantly disrespectful cartoon to our neighbors who are Muslim?

Probably not.

Would they threaten to kill us if we did?

Probably not.

 

But here we are in a global society linked by unprecidented communications capabilities.

We cannot continue to proceed as though nothing has changed.

We are all neighbors now and have to adjust our thinking.

[billcoe]

Try visualizing the context as being totally local and face to face.

You know them. They know you.

Your kids go to the same school, wives talk at the grocery store, etc.

Would we be willing to publicly display a blatantly disrespectful cartoon to our neighbors who are Muslim?

Probably not.

Would they threaten to kill us if we did?

Probably not.

 

But here we are in a global society linked by unprecidented communications capabilities.

We cannot continue to proceed as though nothing has changed.

We are all neighbors now and have to adjust our thinking.

 

So perhaps all political cartoon authors should just be killed? I doubt anyone would take one making fun of President Obama with the big ears and shake it in his face, but yet they proliferate and are viewable constantly in various world media: the US government still isn't yet tracking them down and killing them for attempts at humor, some of which fall very very flat.

[tvashtarkatena]

Try visualizing the context as being totally local and face to face.

You know them. They know you.

Your kids go to the same school, wives talk at the grocery store, etc.

Would we be willing to publicly display a blatantly disrespectful cartoon to our neighbors who are Muslim?

Probably not.

Would they threaten to kill us if we did?

Probably not.

 

But here we are in a global society linked by unprecidented communications capabilities.

We cannot continue to proceed as though nothing has changed.

We are all neighbors now and have to adjust our thinking.

 

The more apropos example, for me, is the comedian who lampoons everyone and everything, including his own country and family.

 

Society needs such unrestrained thinking, expression, and satire to remain vital, interesting, and innovative. Squelch that, and you've handed the dullards the keys to the kingdom. Spiritual, creative, and intellectual stagnation, mediocrity, and suppression soon follow.

 

The Danish cartoonist offended some...as do all cartoonists with something to say. Personally, I don't want a world where someone else decides for me whether or not I can be in that audience. That's not the State's or anyone elses right but my own. By lampooning the ridiculous, and the deification and sanctity of a man's countenance is certainly that, that cartoonist shed the light of day on repression and ignorance; always a good thing, however painful the process may be. Without such spotlights, the bullshit simply continues and may even worsen.

 

We've had a secular democracy from day 1 in this country; it's right there in the 1st Amendment. Any crying over the loss of our 'traditional values' is pure propaganda. The phrase 'Tradition Values' , which personally makes me throw up in my mouth a little, is nothing more than a PR cover for a relatively recent and very non traditional campaign to impose a despotic, fundamentalist erosion of church and state separation. No thanks. I'll stick with the real American tradition of personal choice regarding religion and expression.

 

In the end, if you find something like a cartoon in a magazine offensive, um, well...don't buy the fucking magazine. That's one principle of personal freedom neither the Christian fascists nor Islamic Ululation League seems to get.

Edited January 4, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[prole]

We've had a secular democracy from day 1 in this country; it's right there in the 1st Amendment. Any crying over the loss of our 'traditional values' is pure propaganda. The phrase 'Tradition Values' , which personally makes me throw up in my mouth a little, is nothing more than a PR cover for a relatively recent and very non traditional campaign to impose a despotic, fundamentalist erosion of church and state separation. No thanks. I'll stick with the real American tradition of personal choice regarding religion and expression.

 

Playing Devil's advocate here, is the other side of your coin that the State should stay out of religion, that "the real American tradition of personal choice regarding religion and expression" may mean tolerating a practical affront to the rights and guarantees that "tolerance" is based on? How to maintain the secular institutional basis for democracy and come to terms with traditional or regressive practices in society and honor diversity while not coming off like racist, authoritarian fuckheads? Progressives have their work cut out.

[Choada_Boy]

I'm about to declare Jihad on my afternoon commute. Then I'm going to have a Jihad on a sandwich.

[tvashtarkatena]

We've had a secular democracy from day 1 in this country; it's right there in the 1st Amendment. Any crying over the loss of our 'traditional values' is pure propaganda. The phrase 'Tradition Values' , which personally makes me throw up in my mouth a little, is nothing more than a PR cover for a relatively recent and very non traditional campaign to impose a despotic, fundamentalist erosion of church and state separation. No thanks. I'll stick with the real American tradition of personal choice regarding religion and expression.

 

Playing Devil's advocate here, is the other side of your coin that the State should stay out of religion, that "the real American tradition of personal choice regarding religion and expression" may mean tolerating a practical affront to the rights and guarantees that "tolerance" is based on? How to maintain the secular institutional basis for democracy and come to terms with traditional or regressive practices in society and honor diversity while not coming off like racist, authoritarian fuckheads? Progressives have their work cut out.

 

The constitution protects the practice of religion in a general sense. It does not, provide religions with a hall pass with which to violate the law. Religions that have attempted to do this have typically been prosecuted on issues ranging from statutory rape and polygamy (they tend to go together) to tax evasion.

 

As for religions attempting to codify their doctrine into law, the constitution is crystal clear: That would be a NO. Religions that have attempted this have lost in court. The legal annihilation of the most Creationism > Intelligent Design movement provides a recent, spectacular example of the first amendment working exactly the way it should to guarantee equal religious (and irreligious) freedom.

 

The sticky area comes when religions oppress their members, particularly children, as they so often do, but stay within the law. Well, we already have a mechanism for that; the law. When that oppression violates law, it's time to take action. If it does not, it's time to disagree, live and let live, however one may feel for the victims of such oppression.

 

 

Edited January 4, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

if dog feels like showing off his powers, wavign his hand and producing a year w/o his pets killing and brutalizing each other for the simple reason they were made fucked up from the start would be an impressive demonstration

 

my recent favorite of such fucked up behavior amongst god's spitting images was the chick todya who wigged out at mickey-d's when she was told they were all out of chicken nuggets adn beat the holy-hell out of the drive through lady

[Bug]

 

"So perhaps all political cartoon authors should just be killed?"

Gee. I didn't know I said that.

How quickly we spin out of control.

 

My point is that 50 years ago the cartoonist in Denmark would have been presenting his ideas to his own culture.

Now if you play on the internet or national TV at all, your ideas are shared with the entire world.

 

If you want to piss off the hard core religious fanatics of the world by posting insults in a widely read internet forum while representing yourself as a social commentator, then by all means do so. But don't expect any pity from me.

It ain't fair.

It ain't right.

It should be changed overnight.

 

Do we have any volunteers to be the first martyr for that cause?

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Half empty, half full. Today's worldwide communication offers just as much chance to enlighten and progress as to offend. One could easily argue that the Danish cartoon did more good than harm by exposing the insanity of religious extremism for what it is. Moderate Islamic sects all over the world have subsequently and appropriately distanced themselves from these kooks...and that is a good thing.

 

Those who choose to cow to such zealots perhaps don't deserve the freedoms they're apparently not willing to lift a finger to protect.

[Wastral]

Well, for the most part, people simply need to grow up. Childish thinking can't distinguish between the issue and the person.

 

All dialogue on difficult polarizing subjects requires one to place the issue and debate away from oneself. Those who get mad etc because some yahoo disagrees with you haven't learned the difference between respecting people and issues.

 

Yes, some issues require more "respect" than others, but it is also a 2 way street when debating someone. Those who simply want to shout their opinion and not have a debate are utterly childish and afraid that they might be... ack no.... wrong? Couldn't possibly be wrong...

[Mtguide]

The radical/extremist Muslim viewpoint that anyone who "blasphemes" or offends, (real or perceived), against the prophet Mohammed , or against Islam, must therefore die, is a perfect example of what psychologists call "black and white" thinking. No room or tolerance for any subtleties or shades of gray.

 

It's a kind of thinking commonly identified in school shooters, domestic violence, gang violence, and both wet and dry alchoholics, to name just a few. (For instance, George "You're either for us or against us" Bush, a "dry drunk".)

 

It was also described as a prominent cultural characteristic of the Semitic mind, by T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) in his book "Seven Pillars of Wisdom". This book, which is still today a vitally important source for understanding the history and culture of the Middle East, amazingly prophetic of what we're seeing today, starts with an Introduction on the foundations of Arab revolt. The first four paragraphs of Ch.3 are essential reading for anyone who wants to even begin to understand the Arab mind:

 

"In the very outset, at the first meeting with them, was found a universal clearness or hardness of belief, almost mathematical in its limitation, and repellent in its unsympathetic form. Semites had no half-tones in their register of vision. They were a people of primary colors, or rather of black and white, who saw the world always in contour. They were a dogmatic people, despising doubt...They knew only truth and untruth, belief and unbelief, without our hesitating retinue of finer shades.... Their thoughts were at ease only in extremes...they never compromised,...they pursued the logic of several incompatible opinions to absurd ends, without perceiving the incongruity. With cool head and tranquil judgement, imperturbably unconscious of the flight, they oscillated...".

 

So it's hardly suprising to see things like the fatwas and attack on the the Danish cartoonist, or the whole pantheon of terrorism that we face today. It's a very, very ancient, ingrained mindset. What our society identifies as utter madness, is to many in the Arab or Muslim world, perfectly clear and logical. If you're an unbeliever, you must either convert or die, very simple. If you offend the prophet or his teaching, you must die, whether you're a believer or not.

 

This is how America becomes the Great Satan, why enraged masses can't just chant "Down" with America; no, it must be "DEATH" to America. Nor does it matter that nothing in the Koran explicitly mandates this; it's the BELIEF that the proper practice of the faith demands it, from time immemorial. There's nothing about this inconsistency that gives any militant Muslim so much as a moment's doubt; it's just the way it is. The very declaration of the faith is all the explanation necessary: "There is no God but God, and Allah is his name."

 

End of discussion, as simple as that. Lawrence's book is an incredible, brilliant analysis of not only the conditions and experiences of his own time, but of what's happening right now, just with different players. It ought to be required reading and study for anyone in government, diplomacy, the military, business, etc., who's dealing with anyone or anything in the Middle East. And anyone who thinks for a moment that any of this is going to change anytime soon, certainly within our lifetimes, is a total fool.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Mtguide

[joblo7]

if never a good word is spoken of a religion ......by its competitors??

islam is a real path to enlightenment.. just read and practice the good stuff.

o stfu.

all the old relogions have fanatical freaks.

cheap shots abound among spiritual morons,hiding a deep ignorance.

go meditate,you will feel, see and become

all good.

 

ciao

[prole]

When that oppression violates law, it's time to take action. If it does not, it's time to disagree, live and let live, however one may feel for the victims of such oppression raise your voice in support of those within those communities agitating and organizing to claim the freedoms that are their birthright.

 

Changd.

[G-spotter]

 

Peaceful right?

[Off_White]

 

Extremists suck, and if you disagree, I'll train someone to kill you.

[Mtguide]

If you'll read what I quoted, and what my own comments were, there isn't one word that condemns or denigrates the teachings, scriptures, religion or practices of Islam itself. Rather the problems are with the cultural, psychological and spiritual mindset of the people, and of how they have INTERPRETED and ACTED UPON the scriptures of the Koran. It is through no fault of Mohammed or of the Koran, that these things are happening.

 

You'll even see where I expressly said, regarding extremist views and behavior, (such as killing unbelievers) that "nothing in the Koran explicitly mandates any of this." It's not in the scriptures at all. (I have read and studied the Koran at length.) To clarify the point further, what I'm saying, is that what the Koran ACTUALLY says, and what people may BELIEVE it says, are not necessarily one and the same thing. Just because a person, or many people , BELIEVE something, doesn't mean that it's true.

 

Finally, any true religion, if followed and practiced as it's founder(s) intended, does not compete with any other religion, but accepts all others as equal in depth, truth, and understanding, while respecting the differences in each path as simply a different way to what is essentially the same deeper wisdom.

 

I absolutely agree with you that Islam is a real, beautiful and powerful path to enlightenment, and that all of the old,(and many of the new) religions have fanatical believers. I did not intend to take any cheap shots at anyone, most certainly not at Islam.

 

What I was attempting to do was to shed some light on what many impartial observers through history have found to be a very prevalent pattern and nature of thought and perception among Semitic peoples, and of how this manner of thought has, over time, distorted and misused one of the world's great religions. And none of the world's religions, not Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., have been immune from this very human tendency to misinterpret, distort and misuse them for individual, cultural, or national and governmental ends.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Mtguide

[Off_White]

any true religion, if followed and practiced as it's founder(s) intended, does not compete with any other religion, but accepts all others as equal in depth, truth, and understanding, while respecting the differences in each path as simply a different way to what is essentially the same deeper wisdom.

 

Oh hey now, that old testament God was a right jealous bitch. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (Exodus 20:3 1) I think religions have always competed for followers, otherwise why would we have christmas trees?