| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > Muslims Not 'Free Of Being Mocked |
| Posted by: MacEoghainn 01-Oct-2009, 04:03 PM |
| http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,558546,00.html |
| Posted by: Patch 01-Oct-2009, 06:31 PM |
| My opinion is "when in Rome, do as the Romans do." If they want to live in other countries, the host country's laws and customs apply! If this is not acceptable, they can probably find someone who will provide the fare to get them home. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Nova Scotian 02-Oct-2009, 05:51 AM |
| And the Muslims say they don't force their religion on anyone. |
| Posted by: Antwn 02-Oct-2009, 06:15 PM |
| I don't think they're trying to force their religion by this, they're trying to coerce respect for their own idea that their religious beliefs are beyond reproach. They want its sanctimony respected and want to dictate the terms. Unfortunately for them, that's not how the rest of the world works, certainly not secular democracies, which are anathema to the socio-political-religious proclivities of the majority of Muslim states. |
| Posted by: Camac 03-Oct-2009, 09:20 AM |
| Antwn; Excuse the crudity but :if they can't take a joke. S---- 'em and the horse they rode in on. Their Prophet either spent to much time sitting in the sun or going to the mountain. Camac. |
| Posted by: LibraryJim 03-Oct-2009, 09:42 AM |
| When my daughter was in high school, she had a Muslim friend who's family was from Syria. When daughter asked her why she did things a certain way, because after all she's an American, the reply came back "I'm not American, I'm Syrian". That's the mindset that keeps Muslim immigrants from becoming a part of the country to which they have immigrated, and the root of a lot of their problems. I have friends who have come here from Scotland, and they no longer consider themselves 'Scots' they say "we are Americans" and their proudest moment was when they became citizens. They don't have to give up their cultural trappings (he still wears kilts and eats haggis), but their National Identity is in this country now. |
| Posted by: Patch 03-Oct-2009, 11:08 AM |
| I have a neighbor from the middle east who feels the same way. His irresponsible acts and rejection of our laws caused me to read the Koran. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Nova Scotian 03-Oct-2009, 11:26 AM | ||
I don't share much of your beliefs Camac. But you just took the words right out of my mouth. |
| Posted by: MacEoghainn 03-Oct-2009, 11:53 AM | ||||
I'm still trying to figure out what obscene word starts with an "S" (and I was in the Navy so I should know every "cuss" word known to man! ) |
| Posted by: Camac 03-Oct-2009, 12:44 PM |
| Mace; The word is also used to describe a threaded wood fastener. Up here it also means to fornicate and is sometimes used to replace the F word. Camac |
| Posted by: Patch 03-Oct-2009, 12:46 PM |
| I am betting he meant "shoot". Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Camac 03-Oct-2009, 12:49 PM |
| Patch; No I didn't mean shoot. I wouldn't do that to the Horse nor would I S---- a horse. I guess I should have put F--- 'em. Camac |
| Posted by: Antwn 03-Oct-2009, 03:32 PM | ||
Cultural identity can be distinct from national identity. One can be a citizen of one country while culturally belonging to another. Its not just Muslims. A person has the right to identify themselves as they wish. There's no need to invalidate or delete a previous culture to become American. There's no need to create an either/or choice. This is an entirely different point than that of tolerance for satirical cartoons that reference your religious beliefs, although its part of the issue. Acclimation to an entirely different culture is often a struggle, depending on how different mores and attitudes are. I'd imagine for a Scot it would be far easier than for a Syrian. I work with quite a number of Indians (east Indian) and I see it. I see no problem with anyone identifying themselves as Syrian even if they're American citizens. However, they also must realize they don't live in Syria and must acquiesce to some expectations of the culture they've adopted in lieu of expecting their adopted culture to adopt their ways. This is more the relevant point regarding satirical comments about their religion. Satire is part of western tradition and there are no sacred cows for a satirist. I understand it hurts, and those who're the subject of such flippancy feel misunderstood. I too feel misunderstood when I hear some comments about America from outsiders who I feel don't understand us. I also feel free speech trumps my personal feelings of offense, and that ideal is not just mine, but its the law of the land. |
| Posted by: Patch 03-Oct-2009, 03:39 PM | ||
Camac: Ok, I did not think in Brit terms! Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: MacEoghainn 03-Oct-2009, 04:05 PM | ||
That explains it. The word wasn't dirty enough for me and my "sailor vocabulary" to recognized as obscene. That word was perfectly acceptable for use even in polite Navy company.  As I remember it the epitaph you were using had been shortened to "and the horse you/they rode in on". The rest of the statement was assumed by both parties. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 04-Oct-2009, 05:19 AM | ||
Could you give your definition of "infidel", and a brief description of the thought behind "cut the head off the infidel?" I've always viewed this as their belief that anyone who does not believe in Allah, or who rejects Allah, or who mocks Allah, or who lives contrary to the Qur'an, and their command to rid the world of such. |
| Posted by: Camac 04-Oct-2009, 10:01 AM |
| SCShamrock; Actually Infidel is an English word used to describe those without faith. Traditionally it was used by The Catholic Church to describe those who did not believe in the divinity of God. In essence Muslims are not Infidels because they believe in the divinity of god but are infidels in the sense that they do not believe as Christians do and the same goes for Christians in the eyes of Muslims. Now I'm an Infidel to both Christians and Muslims as I do not believe in the divinity of God and therefore cannot be consider a person of the book, the Book being the Old Testament, New Testament, and the Koran. I am not an Aetheist as I believe in a Creator I just don't believe He/She/It, is a God. Camac. |
| Posted by: Antwn 04-Oct-2009, 01:36 PM | ||
Are you able to make a distinction between radical fundamentalist Muslims and the corpus of believers the same way I assume you do between fundementalist Christian abortion doctor killers and the vast body of Christian believers? |
| Posted by: gwenlee 04-Oct-2009, 02:17 PM | ||
I am sure SCShamrock can and so can the rest of us. We all know that there is a double standard in the thinking of the vocals in the Muslim faith. They are the ones that influence the impression the rest of the world has about the Muslim faith. |
| Posted by: Antwn 04-Oct-2009, 02:32 PM | ||
Sorry Gwenlee, I must be one of those who are ignorant of what "we all know". Could you tell me what the double standard is to which you refer please? |
| Posted by: Antwn 04-Oct-2009, 02:55 PM | ||||
It occurred to me that perhaps you're referring to Muslims not wanting their religious beliefs satirized, is that it? |
| Posted by: gwenlee 04-Oct-2009, 03:01 PM | ||||||
Yep that would be right.  |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 04-Oct-2009, 06:56 PM | ||
Well first I would have to agree there is a comparable segment, for lack of a better word, of the Christian faith of fundamentalist Christian abortion doctor killers. I do not. There are a few whack jobs out there who will pop off an abortion doctor occasionally, but as of yet I have not heard of any organized group of them...overt or covert. But I do see the point you are trying to emphasize, and I will address that. The Qur'an makes mention of the infidel, and what should be done to them. Now whether the vast majority of Muslims live by those tenets or not is not the issue. The fact is there is an extremely large and active group of Islamic fundamentalists who do see ridding the earth of the infidel as their holy charge. I think it is interesting to note the lack of fervor in the Islamic world of condemning this. Contrast that with the Christian faith. Jesus is said to have fulfilled the law, meaning an end to "and eye for and eye, and a tooth for a tooth." Christians who feel they belong to God do so by accepting the sacrifice of Jesus. When they accept that gift, they are under the commandment of Jesus who, when pressed by his followers to cite the most important commandment, said we are to love God with all our hearts, all our souls, and all our strength, and to love our neighbor as ourself. So for the every day Christian, killing people who are atheists is not an option, and killing abortion doctors is not an option. We are taught to love our enemies, and to pray for those who spitefully use us. Now that's not to say there aren't those loonies out there who will kill or hurt others in the name of God, Jesus, Buddah, Allah, or anything else. But if it is a Christian who does this, then they are doing so out of some misguided notion, and not because the Christian bible told them to. |
| Posted by: Antwn 05-Oct-2009, 05:20 PM | ||
Well, I don't want to get into a discussion about who has the better religion. To me it would be as ludicrous as trying to determine who's the healthier among two mental patients, the one who thinks he's Napoleon or the one who thinks he's Genghis Khan. The thread is about Muslim outcries at being mocked in satirical cartoons. Personally, I was thinking of the difference in satirical tolerance in larger cultural terms rather than strictly religious ones. Like I said earlier, the west has a centuries old tradition of satire which is not shared in regions where Islam predominates. When you employ draconian punishments among your own people for the slightest critique, its not a stretch to expect similar reactions when those from another culture satirise or criticize your religion. I'm not justifying their reaction. Frankly I think they should grin and bear it, but I also understand their tradition is not a western one. That said, I still think the west should err on the side of our own traditions, meaning publish the cartoons and counter their protestations by adhering to freedom of speech. The Danish cartoon was for a western readership after all. Multiculturalism should include advocating and defending one's own cultural traditions too. If not then the whole exercise becomes one of habitual self-subjugation and appeasement not mutual appreciation. Perhaps standing by your own traditions is the best defense against coercive attempts to alter them according to the dictates of those who don't share your convictions. Demand for tolerance is a two way street while differences are worked out. The vehemence of their protestations doesn't increase the veracity of their arguments, its just makes them louder. Disagreement with these points is welcome. I'd like to hear alternate opinions on this. This issue is at least one shield and spear in the culture war phalanx advancing on the west, where we are both attacker and defender. |
| Posted by: Patch 05-Oct-2009, 05:56 PM |
| I am Catholic and I tell more Catholic jokes than anyone I know! I do not get upset about hearing those jokes either. Most people I know feel the same as I. However, the religious training of Muslims seems to cause them to be intolerant of ANY percieved slight. Being that "thin skinned", they should stay home! They would be much happier there. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 05-Oct-2009, 08:06 PM | ||
Yes, but we're not talking about you or the people you know who share your opinion and your tolerance for catholic jokes. You cannot impose that standard of behavior on someone else as normative just because it is yours. You are using yourself as the nearest example of a good example again, and it's just as shortsighted and wrongheaded as always. You have no real insight into the problem, if all you can say is "Someone who doesn't share the basic nature of my sense of humor or my tolerance for disrespect of deity or belief system is 'thin skinned,' and should stay home so I can continue to live freely in poor taste and discourtesy outside in the open." |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 05-Oct-2009, 08:22 PM | ||
I have to agree with Patch. They need to suck it up and get over it. Frankly I don't think the rest of the world really gives a damn if they get upset. I KNOW no one in my rather large sphere does. And all their frothing at the mouth isn't going to change anything, except to egg more people on.  |
| Posted by: Patch 05-Oct-2009, 09:02 PM |
| Dogshirt: Yes, It they choose to immigrate to other countries, THEY assimilate into the society of the host country, not the opposite. Try to go to their country and practice your beliefs. They regularly KILL Christians in the middle east. Our female soldiers have to comply with their islamic laws when WE are fighting to save their asses in their country!! My a$$ hole neighbor, by the way, now beats his new red haired girl friend and still believes he has the right under his religious beliefs to do so. The police visit him often. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 05-Oct-2009, 10:32 PM | ||
I can't really disagree with anything you said, but only the perception I get that you may feel we (non-Muslims) should avoid satire, or critique or any other thing which may offend. I would not approve if these types of things, usually done by media of one form or another, were to specifically target Islamic audiences. However, the audience for any media these days ends up being the world. So, while I realize that it doesn't take long after the release of any controversial cartoon to make it to the caves and mountains of deepest Afghanistan, that alone does not mean that this type of speech is to be forbidden. Public display of a photo of Jesus with feces smeared on it, in the name of art of course, should be a good example to show that not all religions are honored that much. So, to show such reverence for another belief (and it is religious) while condoning worse treatment to another, is at best discrimination, and at worst, an outright endorsement of that religion. Here in the US, the same group of media and other prominent figures who condemn satirical cartoons about Islam, also work feverishly here to prevent OUR government's endorsement of any religion. I find it a very blatant double-standard. |
| Posted by: Nova Scotian 06-Oct-2009, 06:27 AM | ||||
OHHHHHHH! The POOOOOOOOR Muslims.  |
| Posted by: Antwn 06-Oct-2009, 02:15 PM | ||
You completely misunderstood my post Shamrock. I don't see how you could have made such a perception, unless you miss having a clear position to dispute. I know where some of your peeves lie, but lets not project them on another whose post didn't take a position peeves you. I don't advocate avoidance of satire so as not to offend. Here's what I wrote: "That said, I still think the west should err on the side of our own traditions, meaning publish the cartoons and counter their protestations by adhering to freedom of speech. The Danish cartoon was for a western readership after all. Multiculturalism should include advocating and defending one's own cultural traditions too. If not then the whole exercise becomes one of habitual self-subjugation and appeasement not mutual appreciation. " To avoid publishing cartoons so as not to offend would be to render the importance of one's own cultural traditions subordinate to another's in one's own milieu. Multicultural appreciation is not obtained by habitual self-subjugation, as I've stated. As for Maplethorpe's artwork you mentioned, the same tradition of freedom applies. One reason its become more overt and graphic may be because no one is being burned at the stake for offending the church in their artwork anymore. Even when they were, protestations in art were just more subtle, cryptic, masked as something else. Possible offense is a price of freedom. Of course one can always simply avoid works of art they find offensive.  |
| Posted by: Antwn 06-Oct-2009, 02:49 PM | ||
There's nothing wrong with anyone being offended. Its an understandable response. The problem is not that they're offended its that they demand expression be censored so that they never are offended, then threaten the lives of anyone who doesn't comply with this demand. That's the problem. Saying in essence "f**k 'em if they can't take a joke" closes the dialogue and is not a solution to anything. We share the world, and its becoming smaller. Communication thus cultural interactions and friction are instantaneous and global. Improving mutual understanding doesn't necessarily mean acquiescence to another's demand, but it starts by seeing beyond us/them, my way or the highway mentalities. If you're going to pretend western might justifies bullying the attitudes of others you're just exacerbating the perpetual grievance of the weak thus ensuring the continuity of the problem. The solution is difficult because it takes two to tango and another's willingness cannot be coerced only given, and that doesn't seem to be forthcoming in earnest. Bomb blasts have made that position clear. Yet if a dialogue is to have a chance then someone has to take a position which invites it. |
| Posted by: Patch 06-Oct-2009, 05:18 PM |
| The president has offered dialog and they make him the brunt of their hate. If they hate him, how does anyone expect the rest of us to accomplish anything? Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Antwn 06-Oct-2009, 05:45 PM | ||
Fine then, give up before you start. Real good idea, and one that ensures failure since no effort is made. I wasn't speaking about you personally. Do whatever you want. I was talking about an attitude. The president invites open dialogue. No one expects instantaneous results, except maybe you. |
| Posted by: Patch 06-Oct-2009, 06:40 PM |
| It has not worked in any of European countries or any that have not adopted their religion as far as I know. Only a fool would continue with that philosophy and it appears obama has willingly accepted the label! Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Antwn 06-Oct-2009, 08:08 PM | ||
Obama has accepted a label designation you have assigned to him huh? Such wonderful self centered arrogance! Of course a conclusion MUST be true since it has occurred to you, right? If change isn't instantaneous is won't occur, right? The length and breadth of your vision on this issue apparantly doesn't extend beyond hubris. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 06-Oct-2009, 09:57 PM | ||
I must have. Sorry. |
| Posted by: Jillian 06-Oct-2009, 11:04 PM |
| Maybe we should blend this whole "cartoon freedom of speech debate" with the "open dialogue" debate. Perhaps Obama should open up talks with Ahmadinejad starting with, "A Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Taoist, and an atheist walk into a bar....". Get all the elephants to stampede out of the room. Jillian  |
| Posted by: Patch 08-Oct-2009, 07:41 PM |
| Good Idea!! Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: MacEoghainn 10-Oct-2009, 10:27 AM |
| This one "slipped" in under the radar: http://www.newsmax.com/frank_gaffney/Obama_Olympic_hate_speech/2009/10/05/268618.html |
| Posted by: Patch 10-Oct-2009, 04:36 PM |
| As we add these different discoveries up we begin to see what the true intent is. This is definitely something to be concerned about. I have forwarded the link to see how many may have heard it. Slàinte, Patch |