Re: More surrender


docremington wrote:
Koppe74 wrote:

A mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political scandal after publicly
declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for
rape."

He's a priest giving his opinion in regard to his
religion... and according to Islam, women *should*
cover themselves "so not to tempt men". From that
pov, claiming that women who doesn't cover
themselves are asking for it, is valid. In regard to
Sweedish law on the other hand, it's outragious.

But then there are Christians who feel it's "alright" to
kill abortion-doctors, beat-up/kill homosexuals -- and
applaud AIDS as God's revenge on sinners -- and beat
their wife and children.

That something is alright according to a holly-book
doesn't make it legal. I can't see why it's more wrong
for a Muslim priest to give an opinion as supporten in
the Quoran, than it is for a Christian priest to give his
opinion as supported in the Bible.

Of course, raping, beating and killing people, will (at least
in the Western world) be against the law, so there will
eventually be police, lawyers and judges that will look
at the acts, and give their opinion as supported in the
law of the land... regardless of the perpertrators religion.

Apparently, he's not the only one thinking this way. "It is
not as wrong raping a Swedish girl, as raping an Arab girl," says
Hamid. "The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had
probably fucked before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems
with her family. For her, being raped is a source of shame. It is
important that she retains her virginity until she marries."

This is also true. After all, most raped Western girl
doesn't risk being killed for infidelity... doesn't make it
right or legal to rape them though.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/Fjordman51213.htm
How's that for inciting violence and excusing a criminal behavior? Can
we have some of their embassies go up in flames now?

He doesn't *incurage* people to rape someone...
he just says that a western girl will get in less problems
with her family.

"IKEA, one of its largest companies, censors its own manuals in order
not to offend Muslims. A Swedish court recently judged according to
sharia. I have earlier read suggestions by a columnist in Sweden's
largest newspaper, Aftonbladet, that Sweden should change its national
anthem into "something multicultural".

Something English, perhaps? As the Scandinavian
languages are dying anyway...

Two Swedish girls were also sent
home from school for wearing sweaters showing a tiny Swedish flag. The
headmaster was concerned that this might be deemed offensive by some
immigrants."

Perhaps going a bit far... but it is the minority that
need protection, the majority is strong enough to
fend for itself.

Are CNN, BBC, all the UK and US
newspapers *also* cowards then?
Freedom of Speech is a *right* -- not
duty...

Freedom of speech is not a lone right, it entails responsibilities.

You mean like not saying or printing something
you know is likely to offend a lot of people for
no reason... things that may even cause riots?

Then we agree. The Danish newspaper -- and the
others -- had a *right* to print those cartoons... but
with the prior warnings they recieved -- not to mention
everything that was going on when several others
choose to re-print them -- they should have excersiced
editorial discretion, and *not* printed them.


There are so many things our parents and others
tell us we should and shouldn't do...
"You shouldn't lie"... "Be polite"... "If you can't say
something nice about someone, don't say anything"...
"Be to others as you like them to be to you"...
"Build bridges, not walls"...

It works, if the other side has, at least partially, the same
background. It doesn't work with muslimiah.
As Bassem Tibi points out, "the two-facedness of most Muslim
interlocutors on the one hand and the gullibility of well-meaning
Western idealists on the other." precludes it.

I don't know if dropping bomb and shooting
people is a sign of good will, but...

*Insulting* Muslims, are certainly not the way to
go to promote constructive talk.

Stockholm syndrome?

Can't remember being held hostage lately...

True, but that doesn't excuse the cartoons. It was a
conunter-productive, insulting and *stupid* thing to do.
It should've been obvious that people would be offended,
and that the whole stunt would not promote a calm debate
about these issues.

Arabs-muslims are always unsulted, offended, enraged, incited, angry
about something, it is their usual state.

Which are excellent reasons not to antagonize them.

-Koppe

.

Loading