# Blasphemous cartoons



## Rhisiart (Feb 3, 2006)

Perhaps the Islamic nations are over-reacting, but for the sake of sanity, why would you go out of your way to disrepect someone else's religion?

What do you gain by doing this? The man who designed these stupid cartoons has to be a complete ass. And for that matter, also the editors that reprinted them.

This so-called freedom of press is hypocritical. The press can be silenced by any European government if pressure is put on them when it suits Western politicians.

It is rare for me to support the British press (normally the gutter press of the world), but at least they had the good sense to not copy the Danes and French. I note the American press are also keeping a low profile.

We deplore anti-semitism. We should also deplore anti-Islamism.


----------



## ora (Feb 3, 2006)

I really think you're missing at least some of the discussion. Its pretty acceptable to parody christianity, why is Islam any different? The Danish paper has publicly said that they wish they hadn't published them given the general reaction, but that they were trying to contribute to a debate on freedom of speech (rather than freedom of the press), and commenting on the current sensitivities around Islamic issues. Freedom of the press is one thing, but if you are saying that European governments can (and you seem to imply in some way should) silence people for voicing their opinions (since I don't think you can argue this was any sort of incitement) then personally i think you have a view of the world i think we should be fighting against not supporting.

I may well come back to this, but its 4am and i need sleep, but i felt the need to give some reply first.

ora


----------



## Mikuro (Feb 4, 2006)

I can't recall ever seeing Christianity parodied in such an "outsider's" way. If these were cartoons of Jesus torturing prisoners, you can bet there'd be a huge outcry.

When I was reading about it in the paper today, I thought the rioters (for lack of a better word) needed to just grow up. Then they started describing some of the cartoons, and...well, they really are bad. It bothers me to no end when people project the radicalism of bin Laden to all of Islam. That's an incredibly closed-minded idea.

On the one hand, I don't believe in censorship. On the other hand, people shouldn't feel like they can do whatever the heck they want. They're pushing the limits just for the sake of pushing the limits here, and I don't think that's respectable.


----------



## Rhisiart (Feb 4, 2006)

ora said:
			
		

> (since I don't think you can argue this was any sort of incitement)


Oh, I think the cartoons are most definitely incitement.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Feb 4, 2006)

I think it's rather a "bad timing". Currently there seem to be tensions between religious groups all around the world. If I got it right, those cartoons were actually published 3 months ago. Yet the reaction boosts now when the tensions are getting stronger and stronger. Sometimes I have the feeling that some powerful groups are throwing coal into light fire on purpose so it can go up in flames at the right time. It scares me.


----------



## ora (Feb 4, 2006)

OK, back again after some sleep .

There are few issues here, both issues of fact and issues of opinions. On the fact side, there has been some misunderstanding on what was published. The paper had 12 images of the prophet Muhammad, if such things don't offend you you can see them here: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm . There were also three images that were being distributed by Danish Islamic groups that were far far more inflammatory, including very dark sexual imagery and use of Pig imagery that was clearly designed to enrage Muslim. These images were never published in Denmark, despite news sources such as the BBC thinking they had been and publishing one of them. It seems the people distributing these very nasty images were making a range of outrageous claims - from saying the Danish Queen said she hated Muslims, to having a support base of 200,000 Danish muslims (rather than 15,000). I found out about all this over the last _months_ that this has been going on because i share an apartment with a Danish guy, so i got to hear the on going coverage in the Danish press as well as the recent resurgence of feeling on this issue and the republishing in France. If you look at the images that _were_ published, while edgy they are also make fun of themselves: one image is of a muslim boy in front of a blackboard where he has written "Jyllands-Posten's [the paper's] journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs".

Its also important to understand something about Danish culture here. While in general one might say the nordic countries are very politically correct, the Danes are PC in an odd way. For instance, one of their most popular TV shows (as i hear) stars Dolph, a fascist hippo (man in a life size blue hippo suit) who believes the only true men in Europe are ones like Jean-Claude Van Damme, and the Berlucsoni would be perfect is he wasn't such a lazy southern European (and I've toned down those statements a bit for the board). In general, I have got the impression that Danish humor can be fairly non-PC because on some level its well understood that people are open minded and not bigoted. It took me a while though, and when my flatmate described some of Danish kids TV the first time i was fairly shocked, some of that stuff would have to be on at 1am in the UK if at all (for any Danes, the christmas show about the fisherman in Copenhagen and his son was what got me).

On the issues of perception and offense things get more complicated. Mikuro in some ways I do agree with you, we don't see so much 'outsider' criticism of Christianity, but thats because I live in western europe, a fairly christian-dominated area so its not exactly outsider, but for strong anti-chritian messages how about South Park (the devil and Saddam Hussein in a relationship, God is a strange animal thing who is best friends with the Budha) or the Kevin Smith film Dogma? On the other hand i don't think we should limit freedom of expression, and i think thats why these cartoons were published, to highlight how sensitive we have become of criticizing Islam, rather than just being published _in order_ to criticize Islam. Granted they did not have that effect, and the editors have expressed their regret for that, but this not mean they should be strung up, or Danish people threatened by Hamas etc. I don't feel able to come down too strongly on either side, but I do feel strongly that the kind of sentiments you guys have expressed come from a limited, over-PC-influenced view of the situation. 

If you want to get theoretical about this, i would say it highlighted the modern failure of multiculturalism as a sociopolitical position, something i've seen widely discussed. This failure could be summarized as the fact that being tolerant of other cultures in a country is of course positive, but that we have exercised tolerance in a way that has actually led to ghettoisation by not encouraging integration between different cultures. I've seen this extensively in the UK, from separation of cultures (and here Islam is unusual as the religion and culture seem so intertwined by western standards) based on economic status leading to separation along racial lines in a way which made people feel deeply resentful. I also had a very interesting discussion with a French woman, of admittedly right wing economic views, on the recent riots in France. She claimed that these riots, which seemed to be going along racial lines in some way, showed a real problem in French culture. She felt that earlier generations of immigrants to France who had been invite din to work had been better integrated, but that the second generation children of these immigrants found themselves in poverty and a racial minority, and that when the police stop to check your ID on every block its hard to not feel separated from society.

Ok, I wandered a bit off track their but it does relate here. These images, in my opinion anyway, were _not_ incitement. Edgy yes, perhaps inadvisable, but not meant to lead to racial or religious persecution. For that you can go to north london and find within not many meters Islamic people spouting fire and brimstone and death to the west, and British people (from the british national party) calling for racial purity of Britain (forgetting we are all a mix of romans, celts, saxons, vikings, normans etc etc). Both are reprehensible, but i don't feel this is the same situation. I also wonder why these cartoons, which were published in _september_ last year, were only causing the uproar now,and why the French paper chose to reprint them (I am less sure if their motives are real discussion or shifting more papers).

Urgh, enough for now or I'll be at this all day. I really don't want to offend anyone, i would just encourage looking at the situation in context and with as much information as possible, rather than to some extent being affected by a version of the media hyping that people are accusing the Danes, or rather this one paper, are doing.

[edit] Zammy you posted while i was composing this almost endless post . I agree with you, i can't say for certain if this situation has been used to support certain positions, but i think its a very valid question.


----------



## Mikuro (Feb 4, 2006)

Thanks for taking the time to write that post, Ora. An interesting read.

I took a look at the cartoons you linked. I don't think they're anything to get too offended at, honestly. Some of them seem harmlessly amusing. Then again, religious fanatics (of all faiths) tend to not "get things", and I'm sure this would be exacerbated by the difference in culture. Considering how poorly fanatical American Christians react to even American humor, it's not surprising that some Muslims would be up in arms (er, I meant that figuratively) about this.

I've never seen Dogma, and I'm not a big South Park fan myself, but I just want to say that from what I've gathered, that type of humor is very different from what I previously thought these cartoons were (turns out most of them were not as bad as I thought, though). The thing with South Park is that their humor isn't really at odds with conventional Christian morals. So God's best friends with Buddha  so what? There's nothing wrong with the Buddha's messages even by Christian standards, so I don't see this as offensive or anti-Christian. I think it's just cute  even open-minded. And having the Devil in league with Saddam is practically politically correct at this point. If they had _Jesus_ siding with Saddam, then I'm sure we'd have heard more about it, because that WOULD have been anti-Christian (or at the very least anti-"popular American Christianity").

Another key difference is that South Park is talking about the creators' own culture, and its audience shares that culture. Even if they or their viewers aren't Christian, they at least share a lot of that culture. So it's not like they're misrepresenting anything. That's what I meant when I referred to the "outsider's" perspective. I feel like some of these cartoonists misrepresenting something of which they have no honest understanding TO people who also have no honest understanding.


If these Muslims are demanding that nobody be allowed to draw the prophet Muhammad, then I think that's totally unreasonable. I'm sorry, but _your_ religion should not dictate what _I_ can do. There's way too much of that as it is.


As for the cartoons themselves, some don't seem like they're even trying to be offensive. I don't really "get" some of them myself, though, specifically the first one (what's that...thing...in the lower-right supposed to be? A camel? Is it significant? What's the point?) and of course the ones with foreign text. I thought the "we ran out of virgins" one was funny, but I can easily understand being upset by it if you don't "get" the humor. Humor is always a tricky business. (Heck, maybe my interpretation is more innocent than the actual artist's intent; it's impossible to say, really.)

The only reason _I_ find any of this offensive is that they're almost validating the radicals' behavior as being in keeping with Islam, which it's not. It's the propagation of that idea that I think is offensive (and when done by Christians, very hypocritical). Some of these seem to be merely mocking the radicals, which I think is perfectly legit any way you look at it.


(I wonder if I can find subbed videos of Dolph the fascist hippo.....)


----------



## Rhisiart (Feb 5, 2006)

Ora, I disagree with your views on this issue, although of course I vigorously defend your right to have them. 

In my opinion, the pictures were crass, insensitive and spiteful. I wouldn&#8217;t use the word &#8216;edgy&#8217; to describe them. There were a clear attempt at incitement. Sure, the pictures seem like harmless fun to non-religous Danes, Brits or non-evangelical Americans, who easily dismiss them as some kind of satire, but I think Muslims have a right to feel insulted and a moral duty to express their disgust. However, any such response has to be reasonable and proportional. 

Most religous people around the world - Islamic, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist and Hundu - live by the teachings of their Holy Books and seers. They deserve a modicum of respect and should not have to put up with cartoons mocking their faiths, however 'harmless' non-religous people believe these cartoons to be. 

Equally, there are a minority of radical Muslims who are just as arrogant, fanatical and dangerous as radical Christians, Jews and Hindus. The papers in Denmark and France poked a stick in a hornet&#8217;s nest for a giggle knowing that it would incite extremists. Stupid, stupid, stupid.


----------



## dmetzcher (Feb 5, 2006)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> On the one hand, I don't believe in censorship. On the other hand, people shouldn't feel like they can do whatever the heck they want. They're pushing the limits just for the sake of pushing the limits here, and I don't think that's respectable.


I'm not commenting on the cartoons, but speech does not have to be respectable to be protected. In other words, it's the speech that we may not like that needs the most protection. Silencing others is one sure way to pave a path for others to silence you.

I said that I wasn't commenting on the cartoons, and I'm not, because I have not seen them, or even followed this story at all. I do, however, believe that all religions are open to criticism, and that people have a right to express their opinion of another's religion (I am especially critical of the Evangelical Christians in my own country, and was, in fact, raised Christian). I feel, more and more each day, that people of all religions tend to feel that they are entitled to *not* be offended, as if, simply because their beliefs are dear to them, others should choose their words carefully.

My point has been seen most recently here in the United States, where several school boards have decided that evolution is to be taught side-by-side with creationism. It's not that the school boards are doing this that scares me the most, it's that the politicians and media are afraid to express any view that might cause those who have certain religious beliefs to be offended. So I ask the question - why should someone like me, who has studied evolution and subscribes to the theory, worry that something I might say could offend someone who holds a particular religious belief? Would I be afforded the same luxury? Would those who want creationism - a purely religious theory - taught in public schools walk on the same egg shells for me that they expect me to for them? I think the answer is no, and I think it should be.

Should the paper have published the cartoons? Maybe not, simply because putting forward views that skew what is Islam is all about is simply bad journalism. The paper should not be silenced, or censored, however. The readers will decide, as they always do, what they will read. It is up to other outlets of journalism to call this thing what it is, and state the facts. People should be educated with the truth, and, when they are, this paper will either issue an apology or simply fade away.

You made the comment that, "people shouldn't feel like they can do whatever the heck they want". I respectfully disagree. We take the good with the bad, or we get nothing good at all.


----------



## dmetzcher (Feb 5, 2006)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> I think it's rather a "bad timing". Currently there seem to be tensions between religious groups all around the world. If I got it right, those cartoons were actually published 3 months ago. Yet the reaction boosts now when the tensions are getting stronger and stronger. Sometimes I have the feeling that some powerful groups are throwing coal into light fire on purpose so it can go up in flames at the right time. It scares me.


You get that feeling because that's exactly what is happening, all around the world. Religion is the most polarizing issue in the world, and when people want to divide one group from another, they simply use religion.


----------



## dmetzcher (Feb 5, 2006)

rhisiart said:
			
		

> They deserve a modicum of respect and should not have to put up with cartoons mocking their faiths, however 'harmless' non-religous people believe these cartoons to be.


Why do they deserve to not have their faiths mocked? What if I were a person (and I will not say whether or not I am or am not) who believed that religion was nothing more than a drug designed to keep people in line throughout the centuries? What if I believed that those who believed in a god or gods were no different that those who believed that thunder was produced by angels bowling in heaven? What if I believed that those who believe in a higher power are no different than those who believed that the Earth was flat, or that it was the center of the universe?

Your response might be that 95% of the world believes in a higher power. My response to that would be "so what?" Does that mean that they are correct? All of Europe (the entire "known world" at the time) believed that the earth was flat at one point in time. For all their believing, it wasn't so.

I say all this to make the point that it doesn't matter what you or I believe. We are not entitled to have others walk on egg shells, sparing us criticism for our beliefs. I spare no one criticism for their political beliefs, and I spare them just as much for their religious beliefs.

You might call this showing someone "respect" for the beliefs that they hold. OK, fine. I might believe that welfare is wrong and should be done away with (I don't believe this at all, but I'll play devil's advocate here). If I were to tell  you that, or something else that you disagreed with on principle, would you keep your mouth shut about it? Would you simply walk away? I wouldn't if you were to say the same to me. Respecting someone means respecting their right to have a particular view or belief. It does not mean giving that view or belief your personal respect. It does not mean that you watch what you say because you might offend someone, or hurt their feelings. In addition, starting wars or becoming enraged because someone hurt your feelings (and that's really what it is - a petty "you hurt my feelings" argument) is unacceptable and foolish.

Further, regarding the mocking of one's faith, I hear religious people talking about non-believers like they are common street trash on TV every day. What if not having a faith is, in itself, a faith? What if I choose to believe in no higher power? Will my quasi-faith be respected? I'll put it a different way: What if someone worships the devil? Will you ask that cartoons of the devil be pulled from papers? I doubt it, because no one likes the devil, right? That would make it OK in the minds of most people. If only a small group of people supports a particular view, the standard treatment is to pretend that they don't exist. The problem with religion is that the only people who respect your religion are the people who subscribe to it. We all say that we respect other religions, but what we really mean is that we respect someone's right to have whatever religion they desire. We don't really respect their views. If we did - if we walked on egg shells - there would be no debate in this world. There would still be one religion, and it wouldn't have anything to do with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, or any other current major world religion.

You are owed only one thing as a human being, and that is to be left alone to do what makes you happy, so long as you are not hurting others. Anything outside of that is too much to ask and you are infringing on others.


----------



## Mikuro (Feb 5, 2006)

dmetzcher said:
			
		

> I'm not commenting on the cartoons, but speech does not have to be respectable to be protected. In other words, it's the speech that we may not like that needs the most protection. Silencing others is one sure way to pave a path for others to silence you.


To clarify, I didn't mean that I think they shouldn't be allowed to say these things just because _I_ don't think it's respectable. I'm against censorship, and I mean for everything else I say to be viewed in that light.

I do think it's unfortunate that they _did_ say these things, though, and I frown upon them for it because I don't think their motives/methods are respectable. I don't think people should feel like it's okay to say anything, but that doesn't mean I think anyone should be able to stop them.

I feel the same way about a lot of mainstream TV pundits, too, even when the say PC things. I'm not a slave to political correctness.

Let me put it this way: If I'm walking down the street, I CAN say anything I want to anyone who passes by. That doesn't mean I should, and it doesn't mean I do. And if someone said outrageous things to me on the street, I probably wouldn't try to shut them up  but I WOULD think "god, what an @$$#*!&". I'd just leave it to the court of public opinion.

It's a matter of "the lesser of two evils". I don't like the "well what're ya gonna do about it?" attitude that people have when they're offensive merely for the sake of being offensive. But it would be even worse if you gave anyone the right to decide what's "legitimately" offensive and what's not. Everything can be offensive to _someone_, after all.


As for whether these cartoons are incitement, I don't think that was the intent.


----------



## fryke (Feb 5, 2006)

If those protesting muslims are against free speech, why are they allowed to protest?  Really, just kidding here... I just want to say that I think it's quite healthy to be able to laugh about religion from the time to time. We *all* know there are different religions. Fanatically religious people are the _first_ to know that there are other beliefs than their own. Making fun of other people's beliefs has a long history (it's in the bible, too, btw., that episode I call the big "god show-off duel", where the christian god refuses to show its powers on demand), and I think we'd all get along better if we acted like this:

a) Try *not* to make fun of other people's beliefs, unless they're wrong. (I just _had_ to add that little bit, sorry...) 
b) If someone makes fun of your beliefs, try to see *why* he or she's doing it and try to _see_ the humourous aspects of your beliefs. It'll actually help you _strengthening_ your beliefs in my opinion. Unless _you're_ wrong, that is. 

So, come to think of it. I think both the press publishing such cartoons as well as the protesting muslims are both showing not enough humour and respect.


----------



## delsoljb32 (Feb 5, 2006)

What I don't understand about this is how "Cartoon = Burn Buildings and Hurt People". To me that doesnt add up. My flag is burned just about every single day in other countries. That, in my opinion, is more inflamatory (excuse the pun) than a cartoon could ever be. But I don't go out and burn down consulates and embassies over it. Why? Because I have respect for other people's opinions. That is YOUR opinion, fine. I don't like it, but I won't freak out about it. Get mad, fine, but don't friggin hurt people in the process!!


----------



## Rhisiart (Feb 6, 2006)

dmetzcher said:
			
		

> Why do they deserve to not have their faiths mocked?


I just think its crass to mock someone's belief, whether that belief is based on religion or atheism. Disagree with them: yes of course because that's freedom of speech, but too take the piss is another matter.



			
				dmetzcher said:
			
		

> I hear religious people talking about non-believers like they are common street trash on TV every day.


Yes, I do too and it sucks.



			
				dmetzcher said:
			
		

> You are owed only one thing as a human being, and that is to be left alone to do what makes you happy, so long as you are not hurting others.


Mocking someones beliefs (religious or otherwise) _is_ hurtful.

However, reacting to someone's lack of respect for your beliefs in a hysterical and disproportionate way suggests that your belief is just blind faith. 

P.S. Interesting article on the BBC web site today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4685886.stm.


----------



## dmetzcher (Feb 6, 2006)

rhisiart said:
			
		

> I just think its crass to mock someone's belief, whether that belief is based on religion or atheism. Disagree with them: yes of course because that's freedom of speech, but too take the piss is another matter.
> 
> 
> Yes, I do too and it sucks.
> ...


I agree with everything you are saying here. I do not mock the faiths of others, but I just don't think that we should try to stop others from doing so. I choose not to do it because I think going around and hurting people is useless nonsens. I also tend to think that people of faith are people of faith for life. Changing people simply doesn't work. Arguing religion is like arguing about which flavor of ice cream is better.

Regarding your response to my statement about being left alone to live your life so long as you don't hurt others...
Mocking religion might be hurtful, but I was speaking about direct harassment, rather than expressing your views in a public forum, and not caring how those views affected the feelings of others. Lots of things are hurtful and still protected, as should they be. In a public forum, where many are in the discussion on both sides of an argument, I don't think that criticizing, or mocking someone else is something we should guard against. I can see it now, we start guarding against that, and every celebrity and politician suddenly wants protection. Religion is a thing, not a person. Mocking it might hurt others feelings, but that is life. It should still be protected.

In addition, I just don't think that believing something (especially something like religion, which has never once been proven factual), though it might be sacred to you, should be made to be sacred to others. In other words, you have a religion. It is not your race, sex, or your sexual orientation. It is something that you believe. It does not deserve the same protections from "mocking" that certain things, like the three that I listed, do.

I'll put it a different way:
"I am a right-wing Christian. I believe that gay marriage and abortion are terrible sins, and that everyone participating in either 'activity' will burn in hell. Hey! No mocking my faith! It hurts my feelings! To tell me that I am a blowhard without respect for your freedoms! Don't tell me that my 'religion' is wrong, or mock it in a cartoon!"

The above is an example that I see all the time. It's crap. They are wrong, I believe that they are wrong, then can either (1) keep their beliefs to themselves (and this means that I don't want to see any friggin' ads on TV during election season), or (2) shout their beliefs loud and proud, and enter into an argument with everyone else. Fine by me, but don't claim that you don't get to have your feelings hurt.

While I might not agree with the message of the cartoons, they do say something about the perception that many in Europe and the US have about Islam, given the fact that the religion has been hijacked by a growing number of lunatics bend on pushing their views onto everyone else.

I'm sorry, but you have not made a good enough argument for not mocking someone's religion.


----------



## Rhisiart (Feb 6, 2006)

dmetzcher said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but you have not made a good enough argument for not mocking someone's religion.


Well, I tried my best!


----------



## dmetzcher (Feb 6, 2006)

rhisiart said:
			
		

> Well, I tried my best!


I meant that as more of a joke. I forgot to add the little smilie man.


----------



## bbloke (Feb 7, 2006)

http://joyoftech.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/784.html

Mmm, to be honest, I'm not very happy with the behavior of those on either side of the debate (not in this forum, I hasten to add).  I don't think anything was really gained by publishing cartoons that would strongly upset and offend people, and we need to remember the majority of Muslims are more moderate than we see on TV.  I'm not happy with extremists immediately setting fire to embassies and making death threats, either.  Having a freedom is one thing, but exercising it responsibly is another.  I don't think the cartoons offered anything valuable (having seen them all) and they, in the process, got a lot of people very upset.  Terrific.

Hey, this is quite brief, for me.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Feb 7, 2006)

Unfortunately I haven't had time to read all of the entries in this thread, so I'm not 100% sure that this hasn't been raised already.

The thing that amazes me most is the _utter hypocrisy_ of _Jyllands-Posten_, the Danish newspaper in question. Some three years ago, they were offered a set of satirical cartoons of Christ on the cross, but refused to publish them on the grounds that it would be too offensive!


----------



## adambyte (Feb 7, 2006)

Ooh. That's bad. If you're going to offend, you have to be an equal-opportunity offender. If they don't have the balls to criticize Christianity, they shouldn't be doing it with Muslims. It's all or nothing.


----------



## Perseus (Feb 7, 2006)

I am just wondering though: If cartoons were published mocking Christianity, I cant imagine the christians running around burning building and flags. 

I agree what was done was in incredible poor taste, and can see what is happening. But that thought I had can't escape me.


----------



## ksv (Feb 7, 2006)

Perseus said:
			
		

> I am just wondering though: If cartoons were published mocking Christianity, I cant imagine the christians running around burning building and flags.
> 
> I agree what was done was in incredible poor taste, and can see what is happening. But that thought I had can't escape me.



I've seen flag burning in Western countries over less. Id est, reactionary far-right republicans in the U.S. burning French flags after France opposed the invasion of Iraq.

Recently, a Norwegian-Palestinian was stabbed in Oslo because he was among the demonstrators burning Norwegian and Danish flags in Gaza.

It's mutual extremism, no way to escape that fact.


----------



## dmetzcher (Feb 7, 2006)

bbloke said:
			
		

> Having a freedom is one thing, but exercising it responsibly is another.  I don't think the cartoons offered anything valuable


I completely agree with this statement. Journalism requires restraint, at times. Also, if they were going to publish the cartoons and mock a faith, perhaps a few written words backing up what the cartoons had to say would have been a good decision. I guess this is my whole point: Say what you want to say about a subject (religion, politics, social issues), but be prepared to defend yourself.



			
				CaptainQuark said:
			
		

> The thing that amazes me most is the utter hypocrisy of Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper in question. Some three years ago, they were offered a set of satirical cartoons of Christ on the cross, but refused to publish them on the grounds that it would be too offensive!


I find that most people who have one view about a particular religion tend to be hypocrites, so this is par for the couse. It's always the other guy's religion that is "crazy" or "backward", but never one's own. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone who followed one of the world's major religions actually subscribed to the good teachings found within it? Perhaps we wouldn't have war, famine, disease, and sheer lunacy.


----------



## Mikuro (Feb 7, 2006)

Perseus said:
			
		

> I am just wondering though: If cartoons were published mocking Christianity, I cant imagine the christians running around burning building and flags.


Probably not, but there _would_ be a cultural equivalent. In America, at least, the crazy Christians have three things that stop them from going to such extremes that the crazy Muslims don't: Luxury, a lack of any real persecution, and a far more well-established and powerful legal system. Take these three things away, and I wouldn't put any of this stuff past the radical Christians in America.

With such differences in economy, politics, society and culture, you can't compare actions on a tit-for-tat basis. The main reason Americans act so much more "enlightened" is because we have the luxury to be, and it's in our best interest. It's certainly not because we're any less evil than anyone else.


----------



## Ynought (Feb 7, 2006)

I don't have a lot of time but I will say this, we haven't seen the *prophets* of other religions mocked in a way that I think Muhammad was mocked. You don't see Jesus or Moses dipicted as a killer. It's one thing to mock how people have corrupted a religion, I think quite another to insuate that another's religion is inherantly evil.

Also, it is really not our place to try to qualify the level of anger that muslims should feel. That, to me, is kind of the point. When you do that, you cease to respect the other. A normal person, having unintentionally offended someone would say, 'I'm sorry. I didn't think that would offend you.' If you don't care you say, 'oh well, get over it.'

Also, if Americans (i speak about us because i'm one) we *will* retailate. It may be something like a boycott or an economic riot but we will do what it takes to get the message across. Powerless people are going to exercise the little power that they do have in ways that may not make sense to us.

Also, the freedom of speech argument is a joke. Like Oliver Wendel Holmes said, 'The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.' I think it's safe to say that the Danes have done at least that.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Feb 8, 2006)

dmetzcher said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be nice if everyone who followed one of the world's major religions actually subscribed to the good teachings found within it? Perhaps we wouldn't have war, famine, disease, and sheer lunacy.



A beautiful thought. "Love thy neighbour" etc. But in reality, religion is little more than another form of the sort of tribalism that leads to genocide in Rwanda.


----------



## bbloke (Feb 8, 2006)

CaptainQuark said:
			
		

> A beautiful thought. "Love thy neighbour" etc. But in reality, religion is little more than another form of the sort of tribalism that leads to genocide in Rwanda.


Mmm, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree there.  It *can* lead to those things when *hijacked and abused*, but the same goes for all sorts of philosophies.  The core messages of the faiths are usually very different from what some extremists preach...  Both believers and non-believers (of any religion) are human and susceptible to a whole range of flaws, one group or another is not immune.  Also, we're very likely to hear of the negative sides to religious groups, rather than the positive sides, as that is what makes for more interesting news.  For instance, I see a lot of inter-faith dialog and joint work on charitable causes, instead of faiths being dividing issues.

On a different note, however, things could get a lot murkier now.  An Iranian newspaper has decided to have a contest for the best cartoons on the Holocaust...   

From News.com.au:





> IRAN'S largest selling newspaper announced today it was holding a contest on cartoons of the Holocaust in response to the publishing in European papers of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.
> 
> "It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust," said Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper - which is published by Teheran's conservative municipality.
> He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.
> ...


Ah.  

(As much as I find the idea sickening and think this tit-for-tat is just going to make things worse, they do have a perverse point.)


----------



## fryke (Feb 8, 2006)

It's not even that perverse, actually. I think it's the _best_ way to show the rest of the world how exactly they _feel_ about it. It may come across as aggressive, but hey: That's the point. Better than blowing up a church or anything else, anyway.


----------



## Rhisiart (Feb 8, 2006)

dmetzcher said:
			
		

> I meant that as more of a joke. I forgot to add the little smilie man.


Forget the smilie. You've got an opinion and I respect that. I may disagree with you, but I like the fact that you are prepared to stick to your guns (if you get my drift), without being hysterical/fanatical/nuts.

Lets also forget about the Euro trash journalists for a moment.

What really scares the shit out of me is the fact that so many people today are so empowered by cult thinking that they seem to have forgotten how to think for themselves. The irony is that this brainless activity seems to be the reserve of two polarised communities: those with too little wealth/education/opportunities and those with abundant wealth/education/opportunities.

You're poor and you live in a slum in Bradford, Great Britain and all of a sudden some charismatic loser with a distorted, corrupt version of the Koran suddenly makes you feel wanted. You begin to hate anybody who does not follow your beliefs. So you put on an explosive backpack and board a London Undergound train full of children and woman, thinking that if you kill them all youll go straight to heaven and spend an eternity with 74 virgins.

Conversely, youre wealthy, educated and privileged, but so bored and lacking in personality that you become besotted with some charismatic loser, who persuades you to become a born-again Christian evangelist, making you believe that you've already made it to heaven with no effort required. And whats more, you think you have a God given right to bomb the crap out of any country you think is backward (except if they already have nuclear weapons). 

Christ said the meek shall inherit the earth. I am sure He is right. But as it stands now those without imaginaton are in the ascendancy.


----------



## bbloke (Feb 9, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> It's not even that perverse, actually. I think it's the _best_ way to show the rest of the world how exactly they _feel_ about it. It may come across as aggressive, but hey: That's the point. Better than blowing up a church or anything else, anyway.


Ah, perhaps I should clarify.  It does indeed make the point.   It does show how something that seems acceptable to one group might be absolutely reprehensible to another.  It is just that, to me, this drags in others (i.e. those who have directly or indirectly suffered as a result of the Holocaust), rather than targetting Danes alone.  It is also deliberately touching on a very painful event in history for many, in order to get a response.  I guess I felt it does make the point, but that, for me, it was quite an indiscriminate and "unkind" way of doing it.  I agree that it is arguably better than violent methods, but sometimes the effects of words can be underestimated too.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Feb 9, 2006)

CaptainQuark said:
			
		

> But in reality, religion is little more than another form of the sort of tribalism that leads to genocide in Rwanda.



*Clarification*
Of course what I actually meant was "But in reality, _religion has been corrupted to suit the political ends of those with fewer scruples than those religions espouse_, until it has become little more than another form of the sort of tribalism that leads to genocide in Rwanda."



			
				bbloke said:
			
		

> rather than targetting Danes alone.



But it's now gone beyond just the Danes. The French have published it and it's even had its first airing in a British publication There has been a backlash against anyone "blond-haired and blue-eyed", with even Swedes, who to my knowledge haven't published said images in any publications.

Doodoo > fan!

According to the Qu'ran, Muslims should respect what they call the "book religions"  Judaism and Christianity  which are of the same Abrahamic root. 

Pity that Christians and Jews  or at least the prominent "believers"  don't have the same ideals!


----------



## Viro (Feb 9, 2006)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> I can't recall ever seeing Christianity parodied in such an "outsider's" way. If these were cartoons of Jesus torturing prisoners, you can bet there'd be a huge outcry.



I'm not sure what to make of this statement. Perhaps it means that Christians just aren't violent enough when making their point. 

The biggest and most offensive event for Christians in the recent past here in the UK has been the airing of the Jerry Springer Opera, on national TV by the BBC. Despite receiving thousands (approx 47,000) of letters of protests, the directors of the BBC decided to go ahead with the broadcast. Perhaps if Christians around the globe went on a rampage burning the British Embassies, we might have gotten the TV show pulled. 

The Jerry Springer Opera is just one extreme example of how offensive material against Christianity gets published in the West, under the guise of freedom of speech. Even more common examples of blasphemy include how the name of Jesus Christ is turned into a swear word. Try doing that with the name of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or Buddha and see the kind of reaction you will get. Now, the most common excuse for allowing such language on TV is the fact that the West consider themselves 'insiders' to Christianity, and thus using such language is a tongue-in-cheek cricitism of themselves, or that due to the 'Christian' culture of the West, no one should be offended when the name of Jesus Christ is used in such a way. Yet, how many of the people who use such language are Christian (i.e. active church goers, regular Bible readers, etc)? It is like saying that I can insult the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) because I grew up in Malaysia, a Muslim country and thus am an 'insider' to Islam. This is nonsense, for though I am intimately familiar with Islam, I do not subscribe to its beliefs and thus can hardly be considered an 'insider'.

The biggest impact this cartoon fracas has had on the UK, has been to demonstrate the sheer bigotry, inconsistency and hypocrisy in the actions of the BBC and the local London police. The BBC, for refusing to broadcast the cartoons despite their vehement stance on defending 'artistic merit' in broadcasting the Jerry Springer Opera just a year earlier in the face of countless letters of protest. The London police, for failing to arrest the protesters who carried placards calling for more July 7th bombings (!!), and dressing up as suicide bombers, clearly inciting others to violence. If these were white Christians, you can bet they'd be locked up in a heart beat.

Now on to the cartoons themselves. The cartoons weren't expressed in a vacuum. They accompanied a editorial piece about how the media in the West performs 'self-censorship' on issues it fears are offensive to Muslims. The reason the cartoons were drawn is because the editor of the newspaper wanted to get the opinions of 12 different cartoonists, on how they interpreted Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Sure, they can be construed as offensive, especially the drawings that associate Islam with terrorists. *Nevertheless, these are the impressions that the artists have of Islam, and the actions of Muslims around the globe in response of the cartoons have done _NOTHING_ to change their opinions. * If anything, the way the Muslim world responds has only served to highlight the 'truth' in those cartoons. Which is a bloody shame, if I do say so myself.

There are many moderate Muslims in the world. It is a shame that they have let the extremists run riot and tarnished the image of Islam.


----------



## Viro (Feb 9, 2006)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> Probably not, but there _would_ be a cultural equivalent. In America, at least, the crazy Christians have three things that stop them from going to such extremes that the crazy Muslims don't: Luxury, a lack of any real persecution, and a far more well-established and powerful legal system. Take these three things away, and I wouldn't put any of this stuff past the radical Christians in America.
> 
> With such differences in economy, politics, society and culture, you can't compare actions on a tit-for-tat basis. The main reason Americans act so much more "enlightened" is because we have the luxury to be, and it's in our best interest. It's certainly not because we're any less evil than anyone else.



Mikuro, I disagree with you assessment. You're assuming that there are only Christians in America, which is demonstrably false. If anything, there is a higher number of Christians in poor, '3rd world' countries like Kenya and other parts of Africa, many of whom do not have the 3 luxuries the American Christians have. Yet, we rarely have any such violent protests. Perhaps it has to do with the fundamental teaching of Jesus:
_   "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. --Mathew 5:43 - 47_


----------



## Mikuro (Feb 9, 2006)

Viro said:
			
		

> Mikuro, I disagree with you assessment. You're assuming that there are only Christians in America, which is demonstrably false.


Eh? I don't think my statements assumed that. I was comparing radical American Christians to radical Muslims. (I don't feel I'm fit to comment on Christians in other parts of the world, as my knowledge of their habits is just too low.) The fact that there are not radical Christians in _every single_ place that Christianity thrives doesn't prove an inherent difference between the two religions. If anything, it proves the opposite, since the same as true of Islam. The fact that there _are_ radical Christians  whose behavior, I feel, is fundamentally very similar to the radical Muslims, given the different contexts  does prove (IMHO) that two religions are not so different as many Americans (and Westerners at large, I think) like to pretend.

People are all too willing to project the acts of the Muslim radicals onto all of Islam, apparently without realizing there are Christian equivalents right in their midst (and certainly in history), and they know darn well that _their_ acts shouldn't be projected to all Christians.

If you grew up in a Muslim community, then surely your knowledge of Islam and its culture would be much higher than that of a true 'outsider', so I think you would be perfectly fit to comment on it in an honest way. If you thought it was all bull@#$%, I'd like to hear why. It doesn't matter if you don't personally believe in the religion. If only believers criticized, then we wouldn't get any _real_ criticism! Even if I'm not a Christian, I grew up in a Christian culture and I've seen both the good and the bad of it up close and personal. I have an honest knowledge, so I feel my criticisms are legit. But criticizing something you have no honest knowledge of isn't legit, IMHO. (Although sometimes it's a good way to _gain_ honest knowledge.)


----------



## Viro (Feb 9, 2006)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> Even if I'm not a Christian, I grew up in a Christian culture and I've seen both the good and the bad of it up close and personal. I have an honest knowledge, so I feel my criticisms are legit. But criticizing something you have no honest knowledge of isn't legit, IMHO. (Although sometimes it's a good way to _gain_ honest knowledge.)



This is where the problem lies, if I may say so. I don't know you personally, so this isn't meant as a personal attack. However, the following is my observation from my time living in the UK. 

While the West did have a Christian heritage at some point, it would be quite safe to say that this heritage has eroded. The West of the 20th century is only Christian in flags (here in Europe), and in songs and other obscure parts of society. Many in the West who aren't Christian, consider themselves to have been brought up in a 'Christian' environment, even though as a Christian, seeing the environment they grew up in, I would hesitate to label them anything remotely Christian. They may have been church going, but then attendance at church does not make one a Christian anymore than attending a temple ceremony makes on a Buddhist. Nevertheless, individuals like these consider themselves 'insiders' to something they have never really understood or been part of. Given this is the situation, can such individuals make informed comments about what it is to be 'Christian'?

The situation is slightly different with Islam. Islam isn't merely a religion to those who practice it. It is a belief and a set of convictions that shape the life of a believer. It isn't something they practice only when at the mosque (i.e. church on Sunday), it is something they practice everyday. Every morning, I woke up to the sound of the Azan being blasted out of the local mosque at 5 a.m. Given that I was surrounded in a very real way by Islam, can I be considered an 'insider'? I may be more of an insider to Islam than the average Westerner is to Christianity, but I would not be quick to make comments on Islam (and believe me, if you know non-Muslims in Malaysia, you know they have _lots_ of comments to make). 

The reason is this, I see the way the people live. And more often than not, I see their flaws and flaws tend to stick out much much more. I have seen countless bad stuff done in the guise of Islam, though it is usually politically/racially motivated. The problem is, unless you are intimately familiar with the 'faith' itself, judging the faith by the actions of its followers will give you quite a distorted picture. As such, even though I have lived in a Muslim country for most of my life, I would hesitate to comment on Islamic affairs based on that qualification alone.


----------



## Viro (Feb 9, 2006)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> Eh? I don't think my statements assumed that. I was comparing radical American Christians to radical Muslims.



Actually, having written my reply, it might be helpful to know what you mean by radical Christians .


----------



## CaptainQuark (Feb 9, 2006)

Viro said:
			
		

> I have seen countless bad stuff done in the guise of _[religion]_, though it is usually politically/racially motivated.



"To make a good person commit evil takes religion", Richard Dawkins.

I have edited Viro's quote above, because practitioners of _all_ of the faiths of the world are guilty of this. Having lived in Saudi Arabia, I am free of stupid prejudices about Islam. 

Islam itself is inherently neither better nor worse than any other religion, but I am getting heartily sick of the way that it, and Muslims, are being demonised in the west.


----------



## Mikuro (Feb 9, 2006)

Viro, it sounds like we agree more than we've let on. 



			
				Viro said:
			
		

> Many in the West who aren't Christian, consider themselves to have been brought up in a 'Christian' environment, even though as a Christian, seeing the environment they grew up in, I would hesitate to label them anything remotely Christian. They may have been church going, but then attendance at church does not make one a Christian anymore than attending a temple ceremony makes on a Buddhist.


This is a big communication problem, because different people DO have different ideas of what it means to be <insert religion here>.  As a result, these discussions often end up in word games, unfortunately.

As an American, I certainly agree that a very large number of 'Christians' know nothing about what it really means to be a Christian (this applies especially to politicians...but then I guess that's to be expected!). Nevertheless, they call themselves 'Christian'. Everyone calls them 'Christian'. Since words are given meaning by their use, that's what the word means at this point. Can I make a distinction between the 'real' Christians and the 'fake' Christians? Well, for the most part I try to  that's part of what I mean when I say "radical Christians". I also like to use the phrase "alleged Christians", although I refrain from using it in public forums because I can see it being taken very offensively. But there's no way to draw a definite line between these groups.

So as much as it may have been perverted, it's still 'Christianity'  that's just part of what the word means now. Is it the same thing 'Christianity' was a hundred years ago? Probably not, for better or for worse. But the two share the same name. The same way all these murderers and extremists are considered 'Muslim'.


As for exactly what I mean when I say "radical Christian"...it's hard to define it clearly. That's part of the problem. But I know them when I see them, and I can only hope that whoever I talk to on the matter knows them, too. Last December, there were a lot of 'Christians' who seemed to think that anyone using the phrase "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" was in league with the Devil (okay, that's an exaggeration, but there _was_ an awfully big fuss about it). I think those people are radicals. That particular example seems minor even by American standards, but throw those people's mental makeup into a different context, like the ones the radical Muslims are in, and I really think you'd see exactly the same results.


Philisophically, I can define things like 'Christian' as neatly as I want. But if the rest of the world doesn't share my definition, then it's worthless. So I use the word as it is commonly used. (Of course, how it is commonly used varies from region to region. Doh!)


If I may ask, how do _you_ define 'Christian' and 'Muslim'?


----------



## Rhisiart (Feb 9, 2006)

CaptainQuark said:
			
		

> "To make a good person commit evil takes religion", Richard Dawkins.


Dawkins is as bigoted as the (religious) people he seeks to mock. He is a fundamentalist scientist who is as just as blinkered as religous fanatics.

I think we should remember that there were very few demonstrations in the majority of Muslim countries and for once I believe Condoleeza Rice, that the Syrian and Iranian governments orchestrated the riots in their countries.

However I would really like to know how many Muslims worldwide actually privately support Al-Quada, even if they do not outwardly proclaim to support Islamic terrorists. Of course, I will never get an answer to this question.


----------



## dmetzcher (Feb 9, 2006)

Ynought said:
			
		

> I don't have a lot of time but I will say this, we haven't seen the *prophets* of other religions mocked in a way that I think Muhammad was mocked. You don't see Jesus or Moses dipicted as a killer. It's one thing to mock how people have corrupted a religion, I think quite another to insuate that another's religion is inherantly evil.


People are entitled to their beliefs. Though I do not agree that Islam is evil, or any major religion, people are entitled to disagree with me, and publish such disagreements in their papers.



			
				Ynought said:
			
		

> Also, it is really not our place to try to qualify the level of anger that muslims should feel. That, to me, is kind of the point. When you do that, you cease to respect the other. A normal person, having unintentionally offended someone would say, 'I'm sorry. I didn't think that would offend you.' If you don't care you say, 'oh well, get over it.'


I would have to agree with this statement. I say, "oh well, get over it". Do you know why I say that? I say it simply because I think that those claiming to be religious shoud rise above the pettiness of the "non-believers". Is that not what both Christianity and Islam both speak about?



			
				Ynought said:
			
		

> Also, the freedom of speech argument is a joke. Like Oliver Wendel Holmes said, 'The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.' I think it's safe to say that the Danes have done at least that.


Correct, because that is meant to cause panic, and can be immediately proven to cause panic. Study what the Supreme Court of our country has, in previous cases, determined to be free speech. Simply because something is offensive, and might cause people to act out in a similarly offensive way, does not remove the First Amendment protection granted to speech. Your analogy does not fit. To put it another way, people fleeing a supposedly burning theater, because some ass declared that there was a fire, are terrified, and are fleeing for their lives. People burning a building because someone offended their religion are simply angry. That's all it is, one of humanity's basest emotions - anger (hatred, really) toward another - even if that anger is well-founded, and I think it was, in this case. Simply put, the Supreme Court does not agree with you, the forefathers did not agree with you, and your argument does not hold water. So, it would seem that the "freedom of speech argument", as you put it, is not a joke.

What is a joke is how easily my fellow Americans are able to give up their freedoms simply because they are not doing what the person in question is. The idea is, "well, I'm not a [insert whatever group you want here], so it doesn't affect me." When they come for *you*, and you have let everyone else be rounded up in years prior without ever examining the broader implications, who will stand with you in defense of your freedoms? No one. They'll all be gone.

Martin Niemöller said it in a more profound way than I ever could have above:
=================================================
"First the Nazis came
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."
=================================================

I stand by the freedoms we were granted by birth, not by any god or gods. This is not an American ideal, in my opinion (how arrogant of us to think that it ever was), it is a human ideal.


----------



## dmetzcher (Feb 9, 2006)

Viro said:
			
		

> The Jerry Springer Opera is just one extreme example of how offensive material against Christianity gets published in the West, under the guise of freedom of speech. Even more common examples of blasphemy include how the name of Jesus Christ is turned into a swear word. Try doing that with the name of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or Buddha and see the kind of reaction you will get. Now, the most common excuse for allowing such language on TV is the fact that the West consider themselves 'insiders' to Christianity, and thus using such language is a tongue-in-cheek cricitism of themselves, or that due to the 'Christian' culture of the West, no one should be offended when the name of Jesus Christ is used in such a way. Yet, how many of the people who use such language are Christian (i.e. active church goers, regular Bible readers, etc)? It is like saying that I can insult the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) because I grew up in Malaysia, a Muslim country and thus am an 'insider' to Islam. This is nonsense, for though I am intimately familiar with Islam, I do not subscribe to its beliefs and thus can hardly be considered an 'insider'.


Since when does one need to be an "insider" or believer in a religion or way of thinking in order to criticize it? Would I need to be German to have criticized the Nazi regime? More specifically, would I have had to be a Nazi to criticize their belief system? More to the point, people who subscribe to a system of beliefs, be them religious, social, or political (and, by the way, religion has become both social and political in the last fifty years), tend not to criticize themselves. It is usually up to others, outside of those human-made structures, to criticize them.



			
				Viro said:
			
		

> The biggest impact this cartoon fracas has had on the UK, has been to demonstrate the sheer bigotry, inconsistency and hypocrisy in the actions of the BBC and the local London police. The BBC, for refusing to broadcast the cartoons despite their vehement stance on defending 'artistic merit' in broadcasting the Jerry Springer Opera just a year earlier in the face of countless letters of protest. The London police, for failing to arrest the protesters who carried placards calling for more July 7th bombings (!!), and dressing up as suicide bombers, clearly inciting others to violence. If these were white Christians, you can bet they'd be locked up in a heart beat.


Regarding the July 7th bombings and those who dressed up as terrorists, they may or may not have, through the act of self-expression, incited violence. What amazes me is that we, as societies, actually take that as an excuse for violence. If I dress up as a Nazi, and parade down the streets of a Jewish town in the United States (this happens over here, and they get the permit to have their marches on First Amendment grounds), and I am attacked by someone in that town, he or she should be locked up. It is no excuse for violence, and we all need to be accountable for our own actions. Is it understandable that someone would want to pound on me? Sure, I would want to pound on me if I did something like that. Does that excuse someone from the courtroom? No. We, in a civilized society, are responsible for ourselves. We do not need the government shielding our feelings for fear that we might act like animals and let the basest of our instincts take over.


----------



## dmetzcher (Feb 9, 2006)

Viro said:
			
		

> Mikuro, I disagree with you assessment. You're assuming that there are only Christians in America, which is demonstrably false. If anything, there is a higher number of Christians in poor, '3rd world' countries like Kenya and other parts of Africa, many of whom do not have the 3 luxuries the American Christians have. Yet, we rarely have any such violent protests. Perhaps it has to do with the fundamental teaching of Jesus:
> _   "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. --Mathew 5:43 - 47_


I have, more or less, proven myself an agnostic with most of the comments I have posted to this particular discussion. I was, however, raised Catholic, and I still tend to subscribe to many of those social beliefs, in terms of the treatment of the sick, poor, elderly, and my enemies (though I do not, sadly, always follow them). I think that, throughout history, those who follow the teaching above, or some variation of it, though they themselves may not reap the rewards, accomplish more in the long term.


----------



## dmetzcher (Feb 9, 2006)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> Eh? I don't think my statements assumed that. I was comparing radical American Christians to radical Muslims. (I don't feel I'm fit to comment on Christians in other parts of the world, as my knowledge of their habits is just too low.) The fact that there are not radical Christians in _every single_ place that Christianity thrives doesn't prove an inherent difference between the two religions. If anything, it proves the opposite, since the same as true of Islam. The fact that there _are_ radical Christians &#8212; whose behavior, I feel, is fundamentally very similar to the radical Muslims, given the different contexts &#8212; does prove (IMHO) that two religions are not so different as many Americans (and Westerners at large, I think) like to pretend.
> 
> People are all too willing to project the acts of the Muslim radicals onto all of Islam, apparently without realizing there are Christian equivalents right in their midst (and certainly in history), and they know darn well that _their_ acts shouldn't be projected to all Christians.


One thing came to mind when I found myself nodding in agreement while reading the above two paragraphs: One of the teachings of Islam states that, when a land is conquered, the residents of that land who are either Jewish or Christian are to be left to practice their own religions. Should they convert to Islam, there is no going back. One cannot convert and then de-convert. What strikes me about this is that the Jews and Christians never afforded this same protection to those they conquered. Switch or die, is typically how it went. I think the problem is that we all tend to only know about the religion that we practice, so we fail to understand others. I am certainly not saying that we should learn about all the major religions, though I do find them fascinating, at least, but I am saying that we fail to understand the cultures that drive this world.

Also, others have more or less stated that "if these were Christian cartoons, they would have never burned buildings in the United States or the UK." Perhaps, but why is this. Is there not a greater social issue here? What is, of course, being said in the statement above, is that people of these countries are not civilized. Isn't that what people really want to say, but are afraid to? I think it is.

OK, let's go with that argument for a second. Let's say that the people in these countries where the buildings are burning, at least many of the people in these countries, are uncivilized, for lack of a better word. They solve things through violence. Don't you think that might be because they have no real politics in those countries? Don't you think it might be because they are oppressed, and have only known dictators, who rule by force? Don't you think that the only way that many things get done in those countries is via violent overthrow of the goverment, in order to install a new strongman dictator to run the new terrible government?

All that said, who's fault is that? Theirs? I think not. Those who support dictators are, themselves, dictators. They are just ruling from a distance. Yes, this includes Europe and the United States. We look at the problems in Africa and wonder why there are mass graves. Perhaps because that continent was raped by every western country under the sun.

So now, we are all civilized in the West, and we expect everyone else to "get their acts together". Yes, wouldn't that be nice. It's not going to happen. The solution to radicalism and fundamentalism lies completely in helping other people rise up out of poverty and injustice. Until we can do that, we will be dealing with terrorists, and they will be able to recruit from within those countries from which we turn away when our help is required.

This problem is not a religious one. Religion is just used to cover up the real issue.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Feb 9, 2006)

rhisiart said:
			
		

> Dawkins is as bigoted as the (religious) people he seeks to mock. He is a fundamentalist scientist who is as just as blinkered as religous fanatics.



You won't get _too_ much of an argument out of me on that score, but I do believe that, with that line, he summed up the root of all of today's problems and many of the horrors through history.

Religion, race, tribe. Why do these matter? 

*"If you prick us, do we not bleed?"*

We are all human beings. Surely that counts more than whose method you use to worship God *because let us not forget that Chistians, Jews and Muslims all worhsip the same God.

In a warped kinda way, Muslims are in the right. Look at it from a computing viewpoint:
 Judaism  God v1.0
 Christianity  God v2.0
  - Orthodox  God v2.1a
  - Catholic  God v2.1b
  - Protestants  God v2.2
 Islam  God v3.0
etc.

And who runs System 7 these days?

Now I've probably offended *everyone*!


----------



## dmetzcher (Feb 9, 2006)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> there were a lot of 'Christians' who seemed to think that anyone using the phrase "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" was in league with the Devil (okay, that's an exaggeration, but there _was_ an awfully big fuss about it). I think those people are radicals.


No, that's not much of an exaggeration. Seems to happen here more and more each year. Bill O'Reilly, political moron and talking head, made it his mission this HOLIDAY season (and I say HOLIDAY because our Jewish friends also celebrated on the same day this year) to tell the world, which didn't care, how much he hated this trend to "remove god from Christmas". Whatever. With all the other real issues in our country, and ones we are helping to create in other countries, who given a damn whether the person who greets you at Wal-Mart says "Happy Holidays" or "Merry Christmas". Religious fanatics find these wedge issues and use them to their advantage. O'Reilly isn't even a very religious person, either, and doesn't consider himself to be, as he has said before on Bill Mahr's show, but *he* used this issue to drive a wedge between Democrats and Republicans, in order to remind those of us on both sides of the political war (yes, war) that we need to remember to hate each other this HOLIDAY season.

Some use religion because they really believe what they are slinging, while others use it because it is a means to their end. The latter is disgusting.


----------



## dmetzcher (Feb 9, 2006)

CaptainQuark said:
			
		

> You won't get _too_ much of an argument out of me on that score, but I do believe that, with that line, he summed up the root of all of today's problems and many of the horrors through history.
> 
> Religion, race, tribe. Why do these matter?
> 
> ...


I love that!
And, that's also how I tend to see these three religions in my head, in terms of the order in which they came, so you just put it into words for me.


----------



## Rhisiart (Feb 9, 2006)

CaptainQuark said:
			
		

> In a warped kinda way, Muslims are in the right. Look at it from a computing viewpoint:
>  Judaism  God v1.0
>  Christianity  God v2.0
> - Orthodox  God v2.1a
> ...


Ha. I like this too.


----------



## Perseus (Feb 9, 2006)

I made a statement about how I cant see Christians burning buildings and flags etc, and I guess that yes, if stripped of all luxury -- and protection -- similar reactions may occur from Christians. I am trying to keep a very open mind.  But when I see pictures of a protester burning flags and is wearing a Yankee cap, I really don't know what to make of it. Just the media I guess trying to get me to react a certain way.


----------



## Perseus (Feb 9, 2006)

Wouldn't Protestants come after Islam? "Protestantism is a movement within Christianity, representing a splitting away from the Roman Catholic Church during the mid-to-late Renaissance in Europe &#8212;a period known as the Protestant Reformation." I thought Islam came in 600s...


----------



## bbloke (Feb 9, 2006)

Whoa, I'm never going to keep up with this thread!  

I agree with a lot of sentiments that have been expressed here.  I think protection of freedoms is very important and it is too easy to give them up in times of fear (whether from a genuine threat or an exaggerated one, shall we say... ).  I also feel that with freedom comes responsibility.  

Regarding different religions, I really, truly believe that most believers, of different religions, are not extremists.  It's a bit like people at a complaints desk: the ones who kick up the biggest fuss are often the ones that we remember and who staff pay more attention to, ignoring the vast majority of those who were better behaved.  I see cooperation time and time again.  I've personally seen people from Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, and Buddhist faiths work together and also discuss their beliefs in a mutually-interested-rather-than-confrontational way.  The Christians have not looked down on the others, either, but felt they could learn something from others and that everyone was doing their best, on their own, personal journeys.  

I simply do not believe the line that religions cause all or most of the harm in the world.  Believers and non-believers alike are human beings and make the same mistakes; no one is "superior" as a person.  That said, religion gets hijacked, twisted, and used to suit political, economic, or personal ends.  That does not mean that the religion itself stands for the cause it is being shoe-horned into supporting, nor that the majority of followers are somehow gullible or ill-motivated.

Errrrr, as for Richard Dawkins, no offense CQ (genuinely), but I really have utter disdain for the man and I consider that quote of his to be ridiculous.  Speaking as a scientist too, I consider him to be jaw-droppingly rude, arrogant, parochial, and unprofessional.  For a scientist, he certainly does not keep an open mind.  If I remember rightly, he also was bought the position at Oxford and does not conduct research.  He mainly uses his position to get on his soap box about religion... He is working as a Biologist and not a Philosopher or Theologian.  I don't think I've *ever* heard him keep to the subject in hand and not attack religion.  I used to listen to what he has to say, but now I see him as a self-parody.  If he *really* believes religion is the root of all evil... well, I don't know where to even begin, I think that line is so detached from reality!  To me, he is looking for a simplistic answer to the world's problems, which seems odd for an academic.  I thought this article was quite interesting:  "The trouble with Richard Dawkins."


----------



## fryke (Feb 9, 2006)

(answering perseus above...) Yeah, but I think Protestantism is rather 2.1c than 2.2. It's just a variant of Christianism, whereas Islam has changed the whole user-mode level as well as the driver API. So it's still correct. The problem with this metaphor, though, is that _any_ metaphor is always wrong. As I keep preaching: "Talk about the problem instead of _another_ problem."

But to stay with the picture just for another moment: Most people *I* know have long left versions 1-3 behind and are using the open source version they compile themselves, where God is just an optional module.


----------



## dmetzcher (Feb 9, 2006)

Perseus said:
			
		

> Wouldn't Protestants come after Islam? "Protestantism is a movement within Christianity, representing a splitting away from the Roman Catholic Church during the mid-to-late Renaissance in Europe a period known as the Protestant Reformation." I thought Islam came in 600s...


Yes, but it is not a different religion from Christianity, but, rather, another form. I'm sure that there are a few Islamic sects that have come after Protestantism as well, and possibly a few Jewish sects. The point was that Judaism came first, then Christianity, then Islam. Beyond that, I don't think we were really saying anything.


----------



## dmetzcher (Feb 9, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> But to stay with the picture just for another moment: Most people *I* know have long left versions 1-3 behind and are using the open source version they compile themselves, where God is just an optional module.


I'd like to know where I can get that version. One thing that always bothers me about some Christians (and I will pick on them because I know more about them than any other religion) is the belief that only those who have "accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior" will be saved (whatever saved is to whomever is talking). I find this so short-sighted and, frankly, arrogant. They have never had a working argument, that I've heard anyway, to the "man on the island" scenario. What about a person that leads a life closer to what Jesus preached, but who never know who Jesus was? The argument could be made that this person lived a better life than the average self-proclaimed "saved" person. But, they would argue that this person deserves to be without God in the afterlife because they didn't say, "yes, I believe in that guy who came 2000 years ago". They think that they deserve a place with God simply because they have made that statement, however. Forget that they may or may not follow any of the teachings of their proclaimed savior.

I find the whole thing to be terribly snooty. It's like a little club. We're all saved, and you are not. It's BS, is what it is. It keeps people in line. It's a turn off for me. If there is an afterlife, and I find myself answering for the things that I did, I will have to say that I would be considered a non-believer. I would also like to be able to say that I led a life that makes up for not blindly following a faith for which the only proof of existance was word of mouth. I want someone to come along and say that living a good life and treating people according to what we refer to as the Golder Rule, is all you need. We won't see that, however, because no one wants to lead a religion without any followers. If they don't a church, they don't need you, and your power is gone. My main problem with the church in which I grew up - the Catholic church - is much the same. I think that, not only does it go against all biblical reference to have a central church power with one man in charge, it was created simply to create power for one group of people. People talk about the Pope as if he were a great man. I wonder just how many starving children in Africa he could feed if he sold his hat. (And don't talk to me about how much the Catholic church does all over the world. If they were following their mentor, which should be Jesus, they'd all be walking around in rags and preaching directly to the people - all of them, not just the lowly priests that they send out to do their dirty work.)

And if that offended anyone...well...I'm sorry that you feel that way. I am not sorry, however, for expressing my views, and I think that was the whole point of this thread in the first place.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Feb 10, 2006)

bbloke said:
			
		

> Whoa, I'm never going to keep up with this thread!


You and me both!



			
				bbloke said:
			
		

> The Christians have not looked down on the others&#8230;


WHAT?!?! C'mon, bbloke! The "If you prick us do we not bleed" quote is from Shakespeare's _Merchant of Venice_, which was all about the persecution of the Jews. Then, of course, there's the crusades, where thousands of devout Christians travelled to the Holy Land and committed such barbarities against the Muslims that the Holocaust almost pales into insignificance; there's the Russian Pogroms&#8230; need I go on? (The Dawkins quote is looking more and more relevant, do you not think?)

Surely the Christians look down on all other religions, as they believe that the Messiah has already come, whereas Islam and Judaism believe that He is yet to come. Whereas Islam (in theory at least) respects the other two, Christians believe that all the others are condemned to hell as the _only_ way to get to heaven is by believing in Christ!



			
				bbloke said:
			
		

> I simply do not believe the line that religions cause all or most of the harm in the world. &#8230;  That said, religion gets hijacked, twisted, and used to suit political, economic, or personal ends.



_viz_ Dawkins




			
				fryke said:
			
		

> (answering perseus above...) Yeah, but I think Protestantism is rather 2.1c than 2.2. It's just a variant of Christianism, whereas Islam has changed the whole user-mode level as well as the driver API.



WOW! When I posted that, I thought that it might bring a fairly tortuous thread to an end, with everyone disgusted by how trite I was being. I didn't expect people to start debating the version numbers of the various religions and denominations!

Just goes to show how wrong we all can be!


----------



## bbloke (Feb 10, 2006)

CaptainQuark said:
			
		

> You and me both!


 Hehehehe  




> WHAT?!?! C'mon, bbloke! The "If you prick us do we not bleed" quote is from Shakespeare's _Merchant of Venice_, which was all about the persecution of the Jews. Then, of course, there's the crusades, where thousands of devout Christians travelled to the Holy Land and committed such barbarities against the Muslims that the Holocaust almost pales into insignificance; there's the Russian Pogroms need I go on?


 OK, hang on, I think my comment was taken out of context.  I'm not saying that other groups have not been persecuted, nor have I ever said that religions are not twisted to try to advocate doing so (I've actually mentioned a couple of times that this does happen).  What I meant was that we read all about angry Muslim rioters, whereas the vast majority of Muslims I know are very peaceful indeed, and, similarly, we "like" to hear of religious tensions, but what I have experienced in day-to-day life has been more along the lines of cooperation and inter-faith dialog.  And, on those terms, I see Christians (from experience) believing we can all learn things from each other, rather than looking down on other groups.  So, in essence, I was comparing and contrasting what we tend to hear about (which, granted, does happen too), and what goes on on what we'd *hope* is a more normal basis, but is less news worthy...  That was all.   




> (The Dawkins quote is looking more and more relevant, do you not think?)


Certainly not...  Dawkins tries to make out that religion is the root of evil, and I think that is a very blinkered way of seeing humans.  I also think he is genuinely targeting religion, rather than using it as one example of tribalism, as he is so patronizing and so intense when it comes to religion, and yet does not discuss wider issues.  The "evil" in us is there regardless of whether or not someone has religious beliefs.  One can look at persecution within "atheist states" too, such as some communist regimes, for instance.  Persecution can be perpetrated by anyone against any other group, it is not a "religious phenomenon."  It is a human failing.  This is really my point: those who consider themselves better than others because they do not have a religious faith and, equally, those who think themselves better than others because they do have a religious faith both need to get off their high horses.  Coming back to the Shakespeare quote, in a way: exactly, we're all human, we're in this life together, and we are prone to the same failings.



> Surely the Christians look down on all other religions, as they believe that the Messiah has already come, whereas Islam and Judaism believe that He is yet to come. Whereas Islam (in theory at least) respects the other two, Christians believe that all the others are condemned to hell as the _only_ way to get to heaven is by believing in Christ!


*Some* believe that, but, like with any group, there is a broad spectrum of beliefs and ideas.  Believers do still think, despite the way many would like to potray them, and that obviously gives rise to a wide range of lines of thought.  Certainly wider than you hear about in the media.




> WOW! When I posted that, I thought that it might bring a fairly tortuous thread to an end, with everyone disgusted by how trite I was being. I didn't expect people to start debating the version numbers of the various religions and denominations!
> 
> Just goes to show how wrong we all can be!


I was a bit surprised that the thread went from cartoons, satire, freedom of speech, international relations, and the like, to debating the merits of religion.  Anyway, how about beta versions of upgrades, where one builds on and tries to learn from the past, but where one is happy to explore, make mistakes, and learn through experience?


----------



## Mikuro (Feb 10, 2006)

dmetzcher said:
			
		

> I'd like to know where I can get that version. One thing that always bothers me about some Christians (and I will pick on them because I know more about them than any other religion) is the belief that only those who have "accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior" will be saved (whatever saved is to whomever is talking). I find this so short-sighted and, frankly, arrogant. They have never had a working argument, that I've heard anyway, to the "man on the island" scenario. What about a person that leads a life closer to what Jesus preached, but who never know who Jesus was?


I agree with this completely....and yet I could still say I'm a Christian (though I don't). This goes back to the problem of communication I was discussing before.

The way I see it, the only _real_ base of Christianity is the Bible. All churches should be treated like libraries  a good learning resource, perhaps, but ultimately it's about what _you_ get out of it. Furthermore, the Bible cannot to be taken ultra-literally in the first place; it's open to interpretation. Even Jesus' words cannot be taken ultra-literally, because of the context.

This is one thing I like about Buddhism. They acknowledge that even what the Buddha said might not be true *to you*. If he were to explain something to a hundred different people, he would explain it in a hundred very different ways, because that's what it would take to get his point across. But he's not here anymore, so he can't explain it to _you_. So you have to try to decompile what he said, always bearing in mind the context. In this sense, I really don't consider Buddhism to be about faith at all, at least not in the common religion sense; it's mainly about reason. It's a very intellectually demanding religion.

It's hard to imagine Jesus speaking differently. I mean, do you really think the son of God would ignore the simple nature of language?!? Yet popular Christianity rarely acknowledges this.

But again, popular Christianity is NOT all Christianity. My parents are devout Christians. They have been all my life. They don't believe that non-believers are auto-condemned to hell. I'm not sure they even believe in hell. They've never been real church-goers. But they are most definitely Christians.


Let me put it another way: Perhaps it IS right for people to say that non-believers are auto-condemned. If that's what it takes to get people walking down the right path, then isn't that the right thing to say? But that doesn't make it true _for you_. It may be true for many people that their only hope for salvation is Christianity, but that doesn't mean it's true for everyone.

(Also, I could be wrong, but I don't think Jesus ever said anything of the sort. I think that idea pretty much came from the mere men running churches. So....grains of salt for everyone! )


----------



## fryke (Feb 10, 2006)

Of course, if your _starting_ point is that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and God is omnipotent, then language and context doesn't matter and what Jesus said is simply The Truth&#8482; &#8211; no mistakes possible. At all. And if _that's_ your starting point, many things suddenly change.
Since God, in *my* opinion, is a product of man's imagination ("there must _be_ a God, therefore, there _is_ a God..."), Jesus Christ &#8211;*even if he has lived and spoken to people, even if he has done "miracles" etc. &#8211; was never the son of God (since that's only an imaginary product) and therefore his words were not "the truth", although it might or might not have been close to "it", should it even exist.

But we're quite off-topic by now, anyway, aren't we.


----------



## Mikuro (Feb 10, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> Of course, if your _starting_ point is that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and God is omnipotent, then language and context doesn't matter and what Jesus said is simply The Truth  no mistakes possible. At all.


I'm not sure I follow your logic here at all. Language is language. If you believe in God, you almost surely believe that most of God's thoughts and ideas cannot be expressed well in human language.

The way 'the truth' is expressed can never change what 'the truth' is, no matter where you're coming from. I certainly don't think that 'the truth' is _defined_ by what anyone  even God  says. There's a big gap between ideas and the expression of those ideas.

To put it in techie terms, which seems to be popular (and oh so amusing ), it's like saying that the compression artifacts on a DVD _are_ the movie, because that's the way the authority behind the movie presented it. But if the authority had a better way to present it, those compression artifacts wouldn't exist. Communication always entails compromise  because human language is a lossy codec.


----------



## dmetzcher (Feb 10, 2006)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I follow your logic here at all. Language is language. If you believe in God, you almost surely believe that most of God's thoughts and ideas cannot be expressed well in human language.
> 
> The way 'the truth' is expressed can never change what 'the truth' is, no matter where you're coming from. I certainly don't think that 'the truth' is _defined_ by what anyone  even God  says. There's a big gap between ideas and the expression of those ideas.
> 
> To put it in techie terms, which seems to be popular (and oh so amusing ), it's like saying that the compression artifacts on a DVD _are_ the movie, because that's the way the authority behind the movie presented it. But if the authority had a better way to present it, those compression artifacts wouldn't exist. Communication always entails compromise  because human language is a lossy codec.


If I believed in a god or gods, I would probably have to admit that human beings are nothing less than arrogant in their attempts to understand such a being. Given our lack of knowledge about most of the things around us, I think that saying we know anything about a god or gods is simply lies. And I assure you that even though scientists have learned a great deal in the few thousand years that we've had science passed down from generation to generation, we still know only a fraction of what is out there to know.

I also tend to agree with fryke, and feel that humanity invented gods, and then a single god, in order to explain things in the universe. I also think it had something to do with a ruling class wanting power over the people, as it seems that most religions, past and present, had their priesthood, or some equivalent, to whom everyone else looked for guidance. Monotheism, frankly, is very new in terms of the time it's been around, and it just another idea in a string of religious ideas since humankind first looked for answers.

To those who have said that religion is not the root of all evil, I'll agree with you. Two things are the root of all evil, and the recent events in the middle east in response to a few cartoons drawn in bad taste, illustrate my point. The two most destructive forces in this world have been, and always will be, poverty and a lack of education. Now, for the dictator, these two things are his best friend. Keep the people uneducated (frankly, stupid), and poor. Then tell them that their financial problems are because of this or that, and that you have the answer. Give them a boogyman, and you're set. It's a blueprint for control.

We see this here in the United States. Many people were completely against the current President. Many people were against his policies. Polls showed him behind, even on the day of the election. The key to winning in a situation like that, and both parties have used it in the past, is to tell the voters, who are typically uneducated regarding all the details, that the boogyman is the other guy. "He won't do for you what I will. He helped create your problems. He will not fix them. Vote for me, and you will be safe. Vote for him, and you will almost certainly die in a terrorist attack." This is the same sort of rhetoric that the leaders of other dicatorships, like Cuba, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea use all the time to keep their own people in line, and ensure that they have their loyalty. All leaders do this, in every country. We, as human beings, know how to do it the moment we gain our social skills as children. It's no different than the school yard. I don't think that we ever really grow up, we just get better at being/appearing more mature. The key is making sure that you are educated enough to smell the sh*t being shoveled around, so you can make choices to better suit your own needs.

I'll say it again...
The Middle East is full of uneducated kids (boys and girls) who are told that life is great and that God will love them if they behave this way or that way. Often, this way or that way is just the way that their dictator wants them to behave. These cartoons might not seem like a lot to us, but to those who have nothing other than their God, and a life in heaven with him to look forward to, they are a big deal. These issues will continue to matter long into the future until we start realizing what needs to be done to fix this, and invading other countries, however much we might like to see a particular dictator strung up by his neck, is not the answer. We miss the point because we have everything, and they have nothing. Is that our fault? Some say yes, some say no. I say that, as "leaders of the free world", or whatever stupid title we give ourselves, it is our responsibility to help others, even at our own expense. That's the price of living in a free society. That's the price of having wealth. That's the price of having security. That's the price of having a conscience. That's the price of keeping your soul.


----------



## fryke (Feb 10, 2006)

Mikuro: I'm aware of that. However: Quite a few bible-fanatic groups are not.


----------



## gphillipk (Feb 15, 2006)

Not sure if this has been asked before, or has been addressed in this thread, but does anybody know how far the Iranian Hamshahri newspaper took its vow to publish Holocaust cartoons? Are they available online?


----------



## fryke (Feb 15, 2006)

no idea. haven't heard of it since...


----------



## lurk (Feb 15, 2006)

Here is an interesting responce http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/14/israeli_antisemitic_.html


----------

