Re: OT The Muhammed Cartoons

smacdo wrote:
Johnny wrote:
The bottom line is that the protesters have no sense of
humor . . . or
common sense. Send them a subscription to National Lampoon
and tapes of
Saturday Night Live until they figure out that it is
traditional for
iconoclastic satire to have no respect for anything and to
take nothing
seriously, including itself.

Well that may be so...but that is also assuming that certain people who
follow that religion subscribe to a more 'western' way of looking at
this. I am not condoning their rebellion (and it is important to note
that these are radical Islamists) but I also am not sure it's fair to
impose a certain set of values and beliefs on a people where these
beliefs may not measure up.

And there are more than a few radical Christian groups too. Just off
the top of my head the furor over John Lennon's "bigger than Jesus"
comments come to mind. Different way of doing things for the radical
Islamists, and today in general...but there are always folks who seem
to take religion just a bit too seriously.

There are people who claim to be Christians who are violent, for sure.
I do see a difference, however, in how the Christian community in the
US responded to "Piss Christ" or the recent TV show The Book of Daniel,
versus the way the Muslims are responding here. The Piss Christ piece
was *easily* as offensive as cartoons of Mohammed...yet there wasn't
this onslaught of violence and murder as a result. The Book of Daniel
was countered with protests (mostly in writing) and maybe some economic
pressure in the form of boycotts of advertisers on the show.

I understand the Muslim issue with portrayals of Mohammed, from a
theological basis. But it's one thing to disagree with it; it's
another thing entirely to burn down Danish embassies and Danish
businesses because the cartoons were published in Danish newspapers. I
mean, the response is basically this: I hate that Jeter hit a
game-winning home run for me, so I'm going to destroy the homes of
every Yankee fan I know.

The problem is that what we consider to be the "extreme" Muslims are
the ones who (a) are assuming control in many parts of the world (i.e.,
Hamas in Palestine), and (b) have openly declared that they want
nothing less than the elimination of Israel, and will stop at nothing
to achieve that goal. It's one thing for a few guys in a basement to
say that; it's another thing when people who are heads of very wealthy
and powerful states (oil producing states, like Iran) say it.

It's a very difficult question for us in the West to handle, because it
isn't simply a matter of politics. It really *is* a matter of
religion. Whether these folks are reading the Koran correctly, I don't
know, because I've never read the Koran. But that's almost a moot
point...the point is that THEY THINK they're reading it correctly, and
that means that their aims and their tactics are driven by their
understanding of Islam. It simply doesn't work for us to say, look,
that's not what Islam teaches. So we - a nation of religious freedom -
are trying to deal *politically* with people whose destructive views
are *religious* in nature. What on earth are we supposed to do with
that? Do we go to war against a religion? How does a religiously
multicultural nation do that, when a decent percentage of its own
population shares that religion?

It's much worse than a thorny mess...and lest anyone think that this
came about by George W, remember that this has been going on long
before he came into power...

- the Arab-Israeli wars in '67, '73, etc.
- the Palestinians vs. Israeli conflict going on for a while now
- the hostages in Iran ('79, I believe)
- the bombing of the WTC in 1993
- the bombing of the WTC in 2001, just 7 months after Bush became
president

And more. Here's the question (try to take into account the
complexities of the cultural and religious differences, and the
complexities of the Middle East itself): what would you do if you were
president of the U.S., and why would you do it?

John

.

Relevant Pages