America's attempts to appease "Muslim opinion" are depraved and suicidal.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Scott & Lai[/b

As for, "Religions may not be insulted or attacked, but attacking the practitioners of non-Muslim religions is apparently acceptable." Did you read my first post when i said that Jews/christians and everyone else are all equal in the true religion?? What is a practitioner anyway?

And as for "Perhaps so, but then, there are a he11 of a lot of false Muslims"... I agree. But why is it so shocking to you? In the real bible, christians aren't supposed to drink alcohol. Do u see me saying "Well, there are a hell of a lot of fake christians!" COME ON!!

I don't see where in your post it said all are equal...it just said killing of innocents, regardless of religion is wrong in the true religion. A practitioner is one who believes and practices a religion, as opposed to the religion itself as a concept.

Can you quote the Bible passage that says Christians are not supposed to drink alcohol??

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't mind free speech to the extend that it doesn't constitute a weapon of advocating violence, and that it can't be used to promote hate or some forms of everyday bigotry. Free speech is OK for me when it can teach tolerance. I disagree of a legal system that does not punish hate speech, and where there is no balancing between speech and respect.

Would you consider publishing pictures of the Prophet as acceptable 'free speech'?

That really depends. Context defines acceptibility.

Just a cartoon portrait. Nothing offensive.

To you. Again it depends on your perspective. No communicative text is 'value free'.

Thanks for the 'value free' response.

How about a cartoon of the Prophet feeding the poor?

Cartoons that denigrate islamic culture and tradition for the benefit of the white middle-class readers of a relatively minor far-right european newspaper, says a lot about the political views of that publication and its readers.

I'm guessing you're getting at the idea that 'any cartoon depiction' of the prophet would have encouraged a violent reaction from these people. I don't think that's necessarily true. The folks who claim that the non-image of Mohammed is sacred forget that the prophet has been depicted plenty of times over the centuries in islamic art. That's why I say their arguments are primarily political NOT religious.

Reposted from the other page. This is still fairly a compelling argument. To me anyway.

it's an unstated principle in democracies that the sensibilities of those who are historically the weakest groups should be given more right to object than those who have historically been the most powerful. That's the principle (simple fairness) which we have yet to enshrine in a useful law, but which we are applying when we consider the sensibilities of Jews, Moslems, black people and women, where we don't take them so much into account for most Nordic whites. We are not 'giving in' to minority pressures, we are accepting that they have for too long been insulted and harmed with impunity.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I'm guessing you're getting at the idea that 'any cartoon depiction' of the prophet would have encouraged a violent reaction from these people. I don't think that's necessarily true. The folks who claim that the non-image of Mohammed is sacred forget that the prophet has been depicted plenty of times over the centuries in islamic art. That's why I say their arguments are primarily political NOT religious.

I do believe that the fanatics are hi-jacking the religion and would react badly to ANY cartoon of the Prophet. I do believe most Muslims are decent people. Most Germans were not Nazis during WW2 yet the fanatics (the minority) in Germany did a lot of damage.

And in response to your quote.. I am all for non-violent protest. But the fanatics aren't playing by the same rules.

[dalegg 143]

I am truly saddened to see that such a wonderful website is used by some to express their political/religious views. ....and i hope the admins will have tighter rules about religion/race/... discussions, as they do not belong on this website.

Come to the dark side nina. Join us. You know you can't resist.

[Satisfaction 1]

Reposted from the other page. This is still fairly a compelling argument. To me anyway.

it's an unstated principle in democracies that the sensibilities of those who are historically the weakest groups should be given more right to object than those who have historically been the most powerful. That's the principle (simple fairness) which we have yet to enshrine in a useful law, but which we are applying when we consider the sensibilities of Jews, Moslems, black people and women, where we don't take them so much into account for most Nordic whites. We are not 'giving in' to minority pressures, we are accepting that they have for too long been insulted and harmed with impunity.

Give me a break. I would like to have the number of instances where Nordic Whites have been victims of hatred?? I don't recall having heard of hateful crimes against this specific group of people, whether it was in Europe (where I lived quite a few years of my life), or whether it was in America - unless I am mistaken... On the other end, I have heard of countless hate crimes and acts of discrimination - which occasionally resulted in torture and death - perpetrated against ethnic minorities annd specific religious groups. If I look at the composition of the "Active U.S. Hate Groups in 2004" (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp), I don't think Nordic Whites have a lot to be worried about.

For your reference, not all White people are from Nordic tribes. Italians and Spanish are also Europeans and as such, they are just as White as Scandinavians. Or maybe there are different shades of white? Something I can never quite understand.

[Satisfaction 1]

"it's an unstated principle in democracies that the sensibilities of those who are historically the weakest groups should be given more right to object than those who have historically been the most powerful."

What is this complete non-sense? There has never been, historically, a presumption or "unstated principle" that minorities should be given more rights. On the contrary. This is why they have been fighting for justice for so long. It would like to correct the sentence and replace "more right" by "the same rights". That would be fair.

[sheraz 0]

Most people in the West view muslims from their angle. It was only the 90s that new media came to the muslims countries. Before that their was unquestioned authority and loyalty. But as the media become strong and the internet came about, muslims began to ask their leaders about why they have ruined their countries, not created top quality educational institutes and helped create a so called welfare society(90% of population pays no tax), no industrialization. And what is the best way for the rulers to answer them . Point fingers at someone. Political accountablity is a something new in the muslim world and unfortuantely was diverted in the wrong direction. Most muslim leaders did not give straight up answers. This accompanied by the fact that most former muslim leaders had political assylum in the west and swiss bank accounts. This easily left people to draw their own conclusions and the result is the problems. Its not easy to give straight answers. Bush has never given a straight answer from the lack of evidence of WMD (regardless of your reasons to going for war) to the present. And he still gets away with it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"it's an unstated principle in democracies that the sensibilities of those who are historically the weakest groups should be given more right to object than those who have historically been the most powerful."

What is this complete non-sense? There has never been, historically, a presumption or "unstated principle" that minorities should be given more rights. On the contrary. This is why they have been fighting for justice for so long. It would like to correct the sentence and replace "more right" by "the same rights". That would be fair.

The "unstated principle" is not specifically that minorities be given more rights, just that they have a greater voice where freedom of speech is concerned. He's not saying that as a society we typically consider the sensibilities of minority groups (who have been historically repressed) above those of (in this case - Nordic) whites who haven't been the subject of racial / religious persecution.

For the same reason, claims of racism are generally taken more seriously when they come from minorities than when they come from whites. Its because its understood that blacks etc have been historically been the targets of repression and discrimination. For the same reason, womens rights issues are taken more seriously than discrimination against men. Simple fairness....

Its certainly does happen - though what people think about it is entirely separate.

Give me a break. I would like to have the number of instances where Nordic Whites have been victims of hatred?? I don't recall having heard of hateful crimes against this specific group of people, whether it was in Europe (where I lived quite a few years of my life), or whether it was in America - unless I am mistaken... On the other end, I have heard of countless hate crimes and acts of discrimination - which occasionally resulted in torture and death - perpetrated against ethnic minorities annd specific religious groups. If I look at the composition of the "Active U.S. Hate Groups in 2004" (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp), I don't think Nordic Whites have a lot to be worried about.

For your reference, not all White people are from Nordic tribes. Italians and Spanish are also Europeans and as such, they are just as White as Scandinavians. Or maybe there are different shades of white? Something I can never quite understand.

As I said, it was never claimed that scandinavians (Nordic Whites) have been subjected to race hatred. What was claimed is that the sensibilities of a broadly maligned group (muslims) is given greater prominence than that of Nordic (or other) Whites (i.e. the Danes).

Edited March 5, 2006 by Fishdude

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm guessing you're getting at the idea that 'any cartoon depiction' of the prophet would have encouraged a violent reaction from these people. I don't think that's necessarily true. The folks who claim that the non-image of Mohammed is sacred forget that the prophet has been depicted plenty of times over the centuries in islamic art. That's why I say their arguments are primarily political NOT religious.

I do believe that the fanatics are hi-jacking the religion and would react badly to ANY cartoon of the Prophet. I do believe most Muslims are decent people. Most Germans were not Nazis during WW2 yet the fanatics (the minority) in Germany did a lot of damage.

And in response to your quote.. I am all for non-violent protest. But the fanatics aren't playing by the same rules.

That's where I disagree. Had those cartoons been non-offensive (e.g. if they depicted, as you say, Mohammed feeding the poor) I honestly don't think there would have been any protest over them.

For the people who orchestrated those protests - those cartoons validated everything they have been telling their people for years. That the west hates their religion and way of life. They seized on them because the cartoons perfectly validated their preconceived views. From then on it was relatively simple to whip people up into a frenzy.

Had the cartoons shown a positive depiction of Mohammed that did not confirm the preconceived stereotypes that they hold against the west, there would have been no issue for the political orchestrators to focus hatred on - regardless of the doctrine that condemns ANY depiction of the prophet. Its simply not in their interest to draw attention to that fact that people in the west could have a positive opinion on islamic culture and traditions, a totally separate issue than terrorism.

In other words - you can't fight fire with fire.

Its just one more example how culturally we are broadly losing the so-called 'war on terror'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He's not saying that as a society we typically consider the sensibilities of minority groups (who have been historically repressed) above those of (in this case - Nordic) whites who haven't been the subject of racial / religious persecution.

That there is a typo - in case of any confusion

Edited March 5, 2006 by Fishdude

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But let's follow your brilliant scheme here for a second: Close the embassies. Thus, no visas. So, then we can go ahead and cancel all flights to and from those places? Deny landing rights to their airlines here. Don't help those in need. Don't trade. Send back whoever came here from there. Isolate them and ourselves. Move back into caves. Where does it end?

The isolationist approach worked well against the Soviet Union. It will work against the Arabs, too.

And I could have sworn that the US maintained diplomatic relations with the SU and the broader Eastern Block. The US even established it's mission to East Germany in East Berlin even though the US never formally recognized the right of the East German government to establish it's capital in Berlin - the Postdam agreement said it could not. Anyhow, the US flag right outside the US Embassy in East Berlin was always a like a symbol of hope to me.

But sure: "yay isolationism". Works well down there in Cuba I hear...

Edited March 5, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I'm guessing you're getting at the idea that 'any cartoon depiction' of the prophet would have encouraged a violent reaction from these people. I don't think that's necessarily true. The folks who claim that the non-image of Mohammed is sacred forget that the prophet has been depicted plenty of times over the centuries in islamic art. That's why I say their arguments are primarily political NOT religious.

I do believe that the fanatics are hi-jacking the religion and would react badly to ANY cartoon of the Prophet. I do believe most Muslims are decent people. Most Germans were not Nazis during WW2 yet the fanatics (the minority) in Germany did a lot of damage.

And in response to your quote.. I am all for non-violent protest. But the fanatics aren't playing by the same rules.

That's where I disagree. Had those cartoons been non-offensive (e.g. if they depicted, as you say, Mohammed feeding the poor) I honestly don't think there would have been any protest over them.

For the people who orchestrated those protests - those cartoons validated everything they have been telling their people for years. That the west hates their religion and way of life. They seized on them because the cartoons perfectly validated their preconceived views. From then on it was relatively simple to whip people up into a frenzy.

Had the cartoons shown a positive depiction of Mohammed that did not confirm the preconceived stereotypes that they hold against the west, there would have been no issue for the political orchestrators to focus hatred on - regardless of the doctrine that condemns ANY depiction of the prophet. Its simply not in their interest to draw attention to that fact that people in the west could have a positive opinion on islamic culture and traditions, a totally separate issue than terrorism.

In other words - you can't fight fire with fire.

Its just one more example how culturally we are broadly losing the so-called 'war on terror'

The cartoons came out in September and it took a while for the hardcore fanatics to chum the waters. Where was the outrage in September?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm guessing you're getting at the idea that 'any cartoon depiction' of the prophet would have encouraged a violent reaction from these people. I don't think that's necessarily true. The folks who claim that the non-image of Mohammed is sacred forget that the prophet has been depicted plenty of times over the centuries in islamic art. That's why I say their arguments are primarily political NOT religious.

I do believe that the fanatics are hi-jacking the religion and would react badly to ANY cartoon of the Prophet. I do believe most Muslims are decent people. Most Germans were not Nazis during WW2 yet the fanatics (the minority) in Germany did a lot of damage.

And in response to your quote.. I am all for non-violent protest. But the fanatics aren't playing by the same rules.

That's where I disagree. Had those cartoons been non-offensive (e.g. if they depicted, as you say, Mohammed feeding the poor) I honestly don't think there would have been any protest over them.

For the people who orchestrated those protests - those cartoons validated everything they have been telling their people for years. That the west hates their religion and way of life. They seized on them because the cartoons perfectly validated their preconceived views. From then on it was relatively simple to whip people up into a frenzy.

Had the cartoons shown a positive depiction of Mohammed that did not confirm the preconceived stereotypes that they hold against the west, there would have been no issue for the political orchestrators to focus hatred on - regardless of the doctrine that condemns ANY depiction of the prophet. Its simply not in their interest to draw attention to that fact that people in the west could have a positive opinion on islamic culture and traditions, a totally separate issue than terrorism.

In other words - you can't fight fire with fire.

Its just one more example how culturally we are broadly losing the so-called 'war on terror'

The cartoons came out in September and it took a while for the hardcore fanatics to chum the waters. Where was the outrage in September?

Doesn't matter - it only illustrates how (politically) orchestrated the whole thing was.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

For the people who orchestrated those protests - those cartoons validated everything they have been telling their people for years.

And, ironically, those that orchestrated the protests also validated the very point the cartoons were ultimately making. This really cuts both ways, doesn't it?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

For the people who orchestrated those protests - those cartoons validated everything they have been telling their people for years.

And, ironically, those that orchestrated the protests also validated the very point the cartoons were ultimately making. This really cuts both ways, doesn't it?

yup