I'm looking at the pictures of our burning embassy....

[ertmann|CPH]

...and a deep dispair seems to have overwhealmed me.

I have lived in another country with a different culture and mindset, I have felt the ugly face of racism on my own body and soul, and because of this, allways vigurously defended our minorities, allways spoken out when I saw racism, I have sung in the choir of voices against the Danish Peoples Party and their pittyfull misunderstood anger against another culture. I even voted for a muslim in the last elections to make sure their voice was heard in parliament.

Today my voice have faded, how can I preach that Islam is a tollerant and peacefull religion, when anyone can turn on their television and see that I am wrong? Hijackings, deaththreats, vandalism, flag burnings, jihads, fatwahs, boycotts, as far as the eye can see, from London to Jakarta, the very people I have defended are now shouting that I must die.

They are angry, or atleast they claim to be, because a newspaper have depicted their profet with a bomb in his turban, thereby labeling him, and i turn, all muslims as terrorists. That we are punishing a whole religion because of the acts of a few, yet they are themselves guilty of punishing a whole nation because of the acts of a single editor.

We can not applogize, even if we wanted too, can't they understand? our constitution prohibits it, so in order to do so, we would have to ammend the constitution, which has not been changed since 1953, it would take months, and more important, it would require a referendom, which would not pass, because our liberal freedoms are as heartfelt and deeply rooted, as the muslims love for their profet, so appologizing is in the hands of this single editor, since we can not force him due to our laws - And he obviously doesn't want too.

It is, by the way, the same freedoms, protecting him, that insures that Abu Laban, and the fundamentalists of Hizbu Tahir, week after week, can attack their Danish hosts in their friday prayers. It's the same laws that makes the Nazi party able to denounce the holocaust on their radio – and we tollerate such attrocities exactly because these freedoms are so important to us, and not just a convinient way to degrade muslims.

Speaking of tollerance, It's hard for us to take allegations of intollerance seriously, atleast from the large number of Arab officials and religious leaders who has condemned us, as they themselves bans symbols of christianity, punishes homosexuals by death, and rarely condemns acts of terror and extremism against the west in the name of the religion, which they claim to be peaceful and tolerant.

Our critics must understand that the publication, was a reaction to an explosive tension between the muslims living here and native Danes, which Arabian citizens can't possibly begin to understand, it's a problem that urgently needs to be adressed, In Denmark the traditional way to deal with such matters, are through satire and irony, you see it everywhere, and it's part of what it means to be Danish. I do understand that this is very far from the Arabic mindset, but this was after all published in a Danish newspaper, in Danish, and never ment for the outside world to see.

Which leads me to my last point, why should we as secular/christian society adhere to the rules of a religion we do not follow? what gives muslims the right to come to our country and scream for special treatment, especially as the majority of our middle eastern immigrants have come here to escape the oppresive regimes of their home countries - should they not tolerate the price for these freedoms? In other words what gives a muslim the right to force his values and the rules of his religion upon me any more than I have the right to force my secular values upon him?

I am not the only one to ponder about this - So when the searchlights of the mass media has turned onto other stories and the demonstations of the middle east have faded, the hardworking moderate muslims of Denmark will feel the full rage of the counter reaction, and I am quite certain there will be one, they will be alone in eye of the storm, I will no longer stand up for them, and so I'm afraid, will no one else.

[cmountford]

Well, I think it's horrible to use violence as a form of protest---but I might point out (I understand you're from Denmark) that the United States of America was founded on violent protest (in the form of sabotage, and eventually, war). I am not saying that it is good to use violence as a form of protest---I think it's completely uncalled for in a region whose constitution allows religious & expressive freedom---unless that region has ceased to uphold its constitution, and then treason might be justified to overthrow a bad government. However, I think the Muslims who acted in violence should instead have written letters to the editor complaining about the newspaper & led efforts to boycott the newspaper, perhaps posting signs complaining about the insensitiveness of the illustrator who drew the image---rather than direct them at the government that has allowed them free religion. I must agree that, assuming that their claims are correct, that any pictoral portrayal of their prophet Muhammed is an abomination, the illustrator should certainly have researched the Muslim faith & what is considered appropriate, or consulted an expert---before releasing the image. Unless, of course, he wanted to appear a bigot---which by law he has the right to do, as long as his bigotry does not manifest itself in any physical/violent form (shooting someone, discriminating when employing someone, etc.)

I believe the Muslims' actions should be definitely against the *EDITOR*, and perhaps the newspaper---if the newspaper does not consider the image in question a horrible manifestation of bigotry, upon learning its lack of reverence for the Muslim faith. I think the Muslims should have contacted the newspaper (which perhaps they did), and make a formal complaint against that illustrator/editor---most likely asking for a public apology , and most likely some form of consequence for the person who released the drawing/approved its release.

I would think their violence (although inappropriate in almost any circumstance), would be more justified if they directed it toward the newspaper that published the drawing in question--and not the government

I think I also ought to point out that, unless the news reports I have read are inaccurate, that the vast majority of the Muslims protesting the drawing *DID NOT* act in violence---that they were exercising their right to petition---even though some of their signs had threatening messages. The few individuals who did act in violence should be dealt with in accordance to local law, but I think it's wrong of us to label all Muslims violent.

As a Christian, I can say that what the Ku Klux Klan did, supposedly in the name of Christianity, was completely against my religion---they claimed to be Christians doing the work of their religion---yet they hung African Americans. Is it fair to label Christians violent? In the USA, the Ku Klux Klan still exists, but our government has greatly restricted what they can do---so that there will not be any more hangings or hate crimes, yet they are still free to assemble, petition, and even make statements that may offend others.

Just thought I'd post my thoughts

[ertmann|CPH]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cmountford

I think the Muslims who acted in violence should instead have written letters to the editor complaining about the newspaper & led efforts to boycott the newspaper, perhaps posting signs complaining about the insensitiveness of the illustrator who drew the image

They did, and the newpaper dismissed the claim citing their legal right to do so, So they took them to court, who sided with the newspaper, so they took the pictures, and made some themselves, and travelled to the middle east to call for international protests, and oh my, did they get them - my point is it's going to backfire.

the illustrator should certainly have researched the Muslim faith & what is considered appropriate, or consulted an expert---before releasing the image. Unless, of course, he wanted to appear a bigot---which by law he has the right to do, as long as his bigotry does not manifest itself in any physical/violent form (shooting someone, discriminating when employing someone, etc.)

The publication was in reaction to a childrens book teaching about the life of Muhammed ment for Danish non muslim school children, could not find any illustrators, because of selfcensorship, due to amongst others, the killing of a dutch filmmaker because he made a movie critical about Islam. So the newspaper commisioned artists to draw Muhammed as they imagined him - and printed them, along with an editorial about selfcensorship.

I would think their violence (although inappropriate in almost any circumstance), would be more justified if they directed it toward the newspaper that published the drawing in question--and not the government

Indeed, and not assaulting staff of Danish corporation, hijack citizens, storm european respresentations in Gaza, burn our embassies, bomb our troops, and issue a fatwa against the cartoonists and Jihad upon Denmark - citing all Danes to be legal targets for killing in accordance with Sharia law.

I think I also ought to point out that, unless the news reports I have read are inaccurate, that the vast majority of the Muslims protesting the drawing *DID NOT* act in violence---that they were exercising their right to petition---even though some of their signs had threatening messages. The few individuals who did act in violence should be dealt with in accordance to local law, but I think it's wrong of us to label all Muslims violent.

I don't agree....well not anymore, i used to agree though. I mean offcourse all muslims aren't violent, but unfortunantly it seems the majority oppose western values.

As a Christian, I can say that what the Ku Klux Klan did, supposedly in the name of Christianity, was completely against my religion-

really interesting parallel, thanks...

[White Raven]

Islam generally is a peaceful religion - It's fundamentalists that fuck it all up.

[MStar]

I think that can be modified to:

<insert religion here> generally is a peaceful religion - It's fundamentalists that fuck it all up.

[ShyShy]

And I'm sorry that you've had to go through this, ertmann.

I believe that this current thread of yours hits very close to home with the other thread you started, I believe, last year. About your "fear" (I apologise if I've misquoted you) of Islam taking over your home country.

[cmountford]

Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
...and a deep dispair seems to have overwhealmed me.

I have lived in another country with a different culture and mindset, I have felt the ugly face of racism on my own body and soul, and because of this, allways vigurously defended our minorities, allways spoken out when I saw racism

What country did you live in? I'm just curious---and what sort of racism did you experience, etc?

I know those are somewhat personal questions---so if you'd rather not talk about it, just reply that you'd rather not talk about it

---just a little curious what background you came from

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by cmountford
As a Christian, I can say that what the Ku Klux Klan did, supposedly in the name of Christianity, was completely against my religion---they claimed to be Christians doing the work of their religion---

That's actually a very good comparison. That was first brought to my attention in a West Wing episode a few years ago. "Islamic Fundamentalists are to Islam as the Ku Klux Klan is to Christianity." It helps to keep things in perspective and prevent prejudice against the larger (innocent) group of people.

As angry as I get sometimes about this very type of act, I force myself to think of things with the comparison above to avoid becoming just like.....well...those very same fundamentalists.

[Smeggle]

Can't see what all the fuss is about myself - 'Spitting Image' was doing this years ago - including being derogatory to owld Eyeatolla Komeahere (<on purpose) - Though the best one had to be Reagan and the Monkey Nut Brain sketch...

What this does show to me is that Islamists or Muslims (Or whatever the ejits want to call themselves) are infantilic morons unable to see satire when they see it..

Idiots! It was aimed at the 'Minority Extremeists'! The reaction by 'Many' tells me that you as a people would rather favour extremism and terroisim other than peaceful tolerant ways..

What a sad bunch.... btw I joined up on one of the busiest Islamic forums once... All they did was quote religious mulla bullabaloo to near on every Westerner that commented. We were also 'Segragated' to one area and could only post in that area...

I gave em my 'I'm a simple Human Being' bit and got Allahh this that and tother back - not one of em could put together a simple philisophical statement without refering to there religion and that in some way I was 'Lost', Fallen'? (strange one that).

I just felt so really sad for the lot of em..... What a rotten life imho

[Bilbo Baggins]

Originally posted by Alida
Islam generally is a peaceful religion - It's fundamentalists that fuck it all up.

Judging by the scenes in the Middle East (and London) there are a few more extremists than first thought. Either that or a peaceful religion dreamt up in the Dark Ages is still stuck there...

[Phyltre]

At this point, you do have to question--just how many fundamentalists are there? I mean, all we have on that is hearsay, right?

[baafie]

I am pleased to see that the caricatures on which all this nonsense is focused have been reprinted many times in my country.

Also, I would like to mention that Arabic newspapers do not seem to have a problem printing similar caricatures insulting the Jewish religion. I don't recall ever seeing a riot about those.

(Should this be in breaking news?)

[ScorLibran]

Seems that the Islamic media and the Islamic public don't have much tolerance for criticism and sarcasm. If they're going to be so vulnerable, they'd better be running a VERY moderate show on their end, so that they may stay off the radar of the critical.



Guess not.....so I hope they're ready for lots of crying in their halal fruit loops, especially now that we found yet something else that makes them cry.

[Smeggle]

Originally posted by baafie
I am pleased to see that the caricatures on which all this nonsense is focused have been reprinted many times in my country.

Also, I would like to mention that Arabic newspapers do not seem to have a problem printing similar caricatures insulting the Jewish religion. I don't recall ever seeing a riot about those.

(Should this be in breaking news?)

I hate that kind of thing - the 'One Rule for Us' - ' One Rule for You' brigade....

I reckon it would be best of in the bin then we can have more fun taking the mick - extracting the preverbial from the extremist A***wipes....

Heh - we should just give em all free satelite tv with a 24hr cartoon feed on the Invasion of The Right Wing Islamist Bunny Brigade, (Along with Obligatory 'Bunnies' of the Playboy Variety') - Should calm the silly beggars down..... for a wee while at least....



ps: sorry ertmann - I know your a bit upset over this and I can understand why. Just I see it give em more ridicule than what they are originally complaining about untill they get the message. Probably take awhile with that bunch of numbskulls and never mind it being a Law 'Not to Apoligise' - No one has any reason to apoligise for anything to these kind of morons or the 'Puppet Masters' behind them...(And 'We' all know who they really are...?? )










....Or should by now...........

[ElChevelle]

I killed Charles Schultz for misrepresenting dogs, yellow birds, filthy little black kids and blockheads.

[ertmann|CPH]

Originally posted by Smeggle
ps: sorry ertmann - I know your a bit upset over this and I can understand why. Just I see it give em more ridicule than what they are originally complaining about untill they get the message.

Nothing to appologize for

Originally posted by cmountford
What country did you live in? I'm just curious---and what sort of racism did you experience, etc?

My dad was involved with the International Red Cross, as a psycologist, working with traumatized Cambodians out of Bangkok, lived there for a while, but moved back to Copenhagen to live with my mom fairly quickly, it's not fun being a foreign kid, Asians are generally speaking as racist as westeners are, but they convey it differently, perhaps in a way that you are more sensitive too as a child, as children usually craves for acceptance in their surroundings.

I also experienced it when i lived in in Japan, things like being denied entry to clubs because I was a westerner and such, nothing too serious, but midly hurtfull non the less.

Originally posted by ShyShy
And I'm sorry that you've had to go through this, ertmann.

I believe that this current thread of yours hits very close to home with the other thread you started, I believe, last year. About your "fear" (I apologise if I've misquoted you) of Islam taking over your home country.

yeah, this case, atleast the domestic side of it, which i guess you guys don't hear about on CNN, is exactly what i was talking about, allthough in hindsight fear and plague should have been replaced with different words.

[hgnis]

Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
It's hard for us to take allegations of intollerance seriously, atleast from the large number of Arab officials and religious leaders who has condemned us, as they themselves bans symbols of christianity, punishes homosexuals by death, and rarely condemns acts of terror and extremism against the west in the name of the religion, which they claim to be peaceful and tolerant.

What gives muslims the right to come to our country and scream for special treatment, especially as the majority of our middle eastern immigrants have come here to escape the oppresive regimes of their home countries - should they not tolerate the price for these freedoms? In other words what gives a muslim the right to force his values and the rules of his religion upon me any more than I have the right to force my secular values upon him?

This I think is part of a very fundamental truth. In fact while many may try to sugar coat the religion and make it out to be tolerant et al it is not. There are two core facts of Islam that no one can deny: the words of their Koran gives them or more precisely COMMANDS them to (1) kill and (2) enslave anyone who does not convert to Islam.
(The same thing exists within Judaism but this religion has evolved to a certain extent where such actions are little practiced.)

The problem is that Islamic leaders have hidden the truths to support themselves and build their power bases on the ignorant masses.

Even in the mosques the great Satan and his followers are denounced. Have you any idea who the great Satan is?
Their message is that all non muslims are servants of Satan. You, me, everyone on this forum.

I believe a great conflict is brewing. As soon as the oil becomes too tight, those that remain standing at the end will not be bowing towards Mecca. They will be facing something even worse.

Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
Asians are generally speaking as racist as westeners are. [/B]

Oh you have not even scratched the surface yet...

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by hgnis
Even in the mosques the great Satan and his followers are denounced. Have you any idea who the great Satan is?

No, but I'll bet he only exists in mosques.

Originally posted by hgnis
Their message is that all non muslims are servants of Satan. You, me, everyone on this forum.

And all non-Christians are servants of Satan (or something to that effect). So everyone in the world is a servant of Satan. Then since we're all the same, why can't we all just get along?

Originally posted by hgnis
I believe a great conflict is brewing. As soon as the oil becomes too tight, those that remain standing at the end will not be bowing towards Mecca. They will be facing something even worse.

Yeah, if things get tight enough with fossil fuels we'll certainly go get what we need. And Allah can't do nearly as much to them as air-launched cruise missiles will. In fact, since Allah doesn't really exist, me with a pea-shooter could do more than Allah.

[zootm]

Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
Today my voice have faded, how can I preach that Islam is a tollerant and peacefull religion, when anyone can turn on their television and see that I am wrong?

Because you can't.

I'm going to reproduce my post from Pabook on this subject here, although it was mainly me brainstorming out all of the things I've been thinking about (I've been trying to absorb as much of this affair as possible recently, since it's "culture shock" in a very real and strange way) concerning this affair. Apologies if it sounds rambling, but I think it's worth putting some context on some of these things:

Here's the problem, though. All religious people believe in irrational things, it's the basis of religion itself. We can't stop people believing what they want to believe, that's not the basis of a free society (and would by implication impose on their free speech anyway). It's people's actions we seek to restrict, not their thoughts.

There is not a good "cure" for religion other than the gradual growing of acceptance through tolerance. A lot of the problems that we've seen have been the result of the secular west (which didn't become secular overnight, not by a long way) clashing with the traditionally-religious denizens of other cultures. I have no doubt that they hold this as being as sacred as we do free speech. And what's more, they believe that such things trascend their borders, and work as an insult against their God. The rational result of this irrational belief is anger, in a lot of ways.

My personal belief is that all societies will tend toward secularism as time goes on. But direct incitement is not going to help these things along. I've seen these cartoons compared to the German cartoons of the Jewish before the second world war, and there is significant parallels to be had there. The context surrounding this is one of veiled public fear and animosity toward the muslim community, and the printing of this could quite easily be seen as an attempt to poke fun at their ways, and dehumanise them further.

Personally, I think that the paper should have been allowed to show the cartoons. I also believe that the Muslims had every right to fly off the handle. The actions of some in other countries (the burning of embassies and so on) is completely out of order, of course, but these are places where these beliefs are deep-seated in a way that we in the western world have extreme difficulty even trying to comprehend. In our own countries, the reaction has been one of (understandable) outrage at the companies showing the pictures (which is fairly rational), with the occasional fringe elements making statements which are unjustified and horrible. Which is using their free speech, which is fine by me.

I don't know though. I guess that what I'm trying to say is that from our "enlightened" secular-through-evolution society and viewpoint it's hard to understand why there's a problem at all, but that doesn't mean there isn't a reason.

An interesting question (perhaps for a Disputus thread, although it'd descend into flames pretty rapidly) would be whether our society's views on religion have stabilised, with religions playing an role in people's lives so long as they choose it, with many still choosing it, or whether our societies will further evolve to be (effectively) completely atheist.

[White Raven]

Originally posted by Bilbo Baggins
Judging by the scenes in the Middle East (and London) there are a few more extremists than first thought. Either that or a peaceful religion dreamt up in the Dark Ages is still stuck there...

Islam is one of the most practised religions in the world.
Conversely, the number of individuals practising it in hillbilly fashion will be larger, proportionate to the larger number of people following it.

Also - Media exaggerates. These several hundred thousand people are nothing compared to the quite literal millions that follow Islamic teachings.

In my eyes, it just shows how much people in the middle east run behind time. It reminds me of what christians did in the middle ages. I'm well aware though of the fact that few spoil it for the rest.

I hope Denmark never apologizes. Freedom of speach is one of the basic thoughts of our society. I hope one day other people in the world realize what a valuable thing that is.

[ScorLibran]

Denmark hasn't (and likely will not) apologize, however the chief editor of the newspaper apologized today.

And I agree that they (Islamic fundamentalists, and many between maintream and fundamentalism) don't seem to have evolved as a society to a point that equals western society.

What I see, watching them burn effigies and rioting in the streets, is them digging a hole, from which they will soon not be able to extricate themselves. The result is a loss of credibility in the eyes of other Muslims, and to the rest of the world.

Also, Denmark and Norway, and any other countries victimized in this way, will require payment for damages to their embassies. And countries like Lebanon are not rich countries, so they'll be turning that cost over to their people in one way or another. So the very people that burn the embassies will have to pay to replace them. And those things cost several million dollars apiece. That's enough to negatively impact the Lebanese middle and lower classes significantly. Poetic justice, but also a tragedy in itself. This is a loss of finances that they cannot easily bear.

These combined losses of credibility and finances over years to come will spell disaster for Muslim society across the Middle East. They're behind in evolution, and at this rate will never get a chance to catch up.

[MegaRock]

In most places outside the middle east those of the Muslim faith do not believe in much of anything those in the middle east preach. Sadly the majority in the middle east don't either but you never hear or see them - you only see the idiots.

[siebe83]

Originally posted by Alida
Islam is one of the most practised religions in the world.
Conversely, the number of individuals practising it in hillbilly fashion will be larger, proportionate to the larger number of people following it.

Also - Media exaggerates. These several hundred thousand people are nothing compared to the quite literal millions that follow Islamic teachings.

The problem is that the majority of the muslims does not condemn fundamentalists. They see an islamic fundamentalist as a muslim, as one of them: they will defend them, even if they disagree with them.
In most religions/groups, fundamentalists are stopped by their own people. In Islam this doesn't happen...

[zootm]

It's kinda a chicken/egg thing, though. Defending fundamentalists leads them to be victimised, and being victimised leads them to "group together" and defend one another.

[hgnis]

To ba a true muslim is to accept that it is the will of Allah to kill those who do not accept Allah as the one God.
Simple as that. Anyone else saying anything is not a true Muslim or does not know anything about the religion.
It is quite easy to figure out how things will play out should a dominant position play out.

[zootm]

Originally posted by hgnis
To ba a true muslim is to accept that it is the will of Allah to kill those who do not accept Allah as the one God.

That's not really true though, is it?

I don't think so, that's a typical thing said by people who have misinterpreted the bible/koran and took it too literally. There is no religion that forces people to kill other people.

Normal people shouldn't read the bible/koran anyway. It's way too metaforical for normal people to understand properly. Only people of the church can explain it in a good way to the masses, but then again they also have the power to spoil the masses with misinterpreted texts.

[zootm]

The actual references are the holy law statements which, depending on how you take them, either push for complete Islamic rule and death to non-believers (although Christians, Jews, and some other groups do not count as non-believers because they share prophets with the Muslims), or just categorise a "struggle" (violent or non-violent) against those who do not allow people to practice the Islamic faith freely. It's fairly similar to interpretations of Christianity in a lot of ways.

Sharia is derived from the other holy texts, I think, so it varies quite a lot. The same liberation of women from poor treatment with the excuse of religion works on the ridiculous claims of Islamic warfare.

[ElChevelle]

Religion kills more people than it saves.

[zootm]

I'm not going to argue with you on that one. I'm not religious, I just don't like this "well it's clearly because Islam is so barbaric compared with Christianity" pissing contest that always seems to arise.

[ScorLibran]

I agree. You'll never hear me showing prejudice of one religion over another. I say they're all equally destructive to civilization. While radical Muslims fly planes into buildings and blow up Israeli restaurants, radical Christians impede education, the most critical aspect of civilization.

As for other religions, I don't have examples as readily at hand, but I'm sure they have their own dark days. Like Buddhism, for instance...I'm sure radical Buddhists do something bad. I bet they dress up like Buddha, with that huge belly, and lurk downtown getting on elevators and pushing other people out. Yeah. Those damn radical Buddhists.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
I agree. You'll never hear me showing prejudice of one religion over another.

You'll hear me!

Christianity and muslim faiths are practiced by big fat smelly people! With guns! Not like clean Athiests, good-smelling Buddhists, or skinny Wiccans!

Come on. When in history has the Buddhist faith been taken to extremes which harmed another? Christianity and Islam are relatively aggressive religons. I haven't heard of the Taoist crusades, anyway...

[dlinkwit27]

some humor? http://www.tshirthell.com/store/prod...?productid=586

[CaboWaboAddict]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
You'll hear me!

Christianity and muslim faiths are practiced by big fat smelly people! With guns! Not like clean Athiests, good-smelling Buddhists, or skinny Wiccans!

Come on. When in history has the Buddhist faith been taken to extremes which harmed another? Christianity and Islam are relatively aggressive religons. I haven't heard of the Taoist crusades, anyway...

^ Hmmm... me wonders what faith Ghengis Khan belonged to...
or Hiro Hito,
or Idi Amin,
or Pol Pot,
or Benito Musolini,
or Josip Broz Tito,
or Mao Tse-Tung,
or Joseph Stalin,
or General Suharto,
or H.... Oops, I don't want to kill this thread by bringing up that little German!

I'd say a lot of these were good clean Atheists!

[ScorLibran]

Atheism isn't a faith, though. It's a lack of faith. An absence of religion.

When an atheist commits an act of barbarism, it's just another random psycho.

[CaboWaboAddict]

^The problem is, when a Christian or a Muslim does something really bad, instead of labeling him a psycho, the whole religion gets the blame.

Do you hear on the news: "Today another Atheist went on a rampage..."?

But you do hear: "Today Islamic extremists killed..."

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
Atheism isn't a faith, though. It's a lack of faith. An absence of religion.

But thats completely Non sequitur. The point is that atheism has a sense of 'election' just like every other major system of understanding. (ie "hey were the only ones who are completely rational") Divinely enstated or not, it does not matter.

This sense of 'election' can be dangerous under all umbrellas, and especially when denied.

-----------
I guess i don't really see this whole situation as "religous zelots protesting the laws of their newfound home" as much as "culture A clashes with culture B".

You could say "they should accept the new culture because they came here" but, that is extremely ethnocentric and unreasonable. Flip it around. You wouldn't completely adopt middle eastern culture if you moved to Saudi Arabia.

It's something we've fought through over here in America multiple times (Germans, Irish, Scots-Irish, Africans, Latinos ect) and have maybe started to find some sort of peace with (though the problem is still there), but Europe has procrastinated with time after time.
Ethnic and cultural problems didn't disappear from Europe with WWII.


So Muslims don't 'get' satire. Don't satire Musliums then.
"Everything is permissable, but not everything is benifical"

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
You could say "they should accept the new culture because they came here" but, that is extremely ethnocentric and unreasonable. Flip it around. You wouldn't completely adopt middle eastern culture if you moved to Saudi Arabia.

I'm sorry, that's completely rediculous. The Danish newspaper was not directly affecting them in any way. If you moved to Saudi Arabia, and saw something which was clearly normal to their culture (but which violated no one's human rights!), but offended you, would you try and get people from the United States to ban Saudi goods (or, you know, burn their embassies, whatever)?

Of course not. You wouldn't expect them to change around their culture to suit yours, would you?

Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
I'd say a lot of these were good clean Atheists!

Yup. But how many of these were saying "in the name of no god, we will kill you because you have any religion!"?

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
So Muslims don't 'get' satire. Don't satire Musliums then.

Muslims don't get satire. But the world is going to, and will always have the right to, satire them.

It is impossible for an image to insult anyone. For the same reason it's impossible for a person to make another person angry. Grownups are responsible for their own emotions. Unless the other person is doing brain surgery on you and interferes with your neural pathways and synaptic bridges, then they cannot possibly make you mad. Only you can make yourself, or let yourself become, mad. Grownups. Responsible for their own feelings.

Looking at an image is the exact same thing. Grownups. Responsible for their own feelings.

Muslims are mad. My recommendation to all of them who are mad? Grow up. The world's not going to treat them with kid gloves just because they claim to be pussies and not able to handle satire. A book saying their prophet cannot be satired is of no concern to those of us who haven't bought that book. To expect otherwise is inane.

If you're not quite grown up and can't control your feelings, then don't look at things that you allow to "make you mad". Instead what do they do? Send the images all over the Middle East. Their undoing, that's what that is.

By the way...what's the average salary of these pussy non-responsible Muslims who are rioting and burning embassies? How long will their children starve because the parents are forced to pay restitution? Bad parents. Bad people. Intentionally starving children is a sin in any culture.