Friday, February 15, 2008

muslims protest "wearily" against Danish cartoons

Pity the poor victimized Danish media, who now are deprived of victimhood itself - the expected muslim protest against their provcation of reprinting the offensive Muhammad SAW cartoons was not exactly the rabid violent mob they seemed to be hoping for:

Many said they simply could not understand the motive unless it was hatred for Islam.

But the overwhelming mood was not so much anger but weary resignation; a sense that they have been through this crisis once before and nothing has been learnt.

Some Danish Muslims said they felt the problem was not the Danish people who were, if not well informed about Islam, at least generally liberal.

Instead, they pointed the finger of blame at the Danish media, saying it had stirred controversy instead of trying to help mend community relations.


Why, they sound like civic-minded reasonable people who just want to get along and would appreciate not being slagged off all the time. Go figure.

Still, I think some applause for Jyllands-Posten, true heroes of the Enlightenment and brave warriors for selective speech, is in order.

6 comments:

  1. The cartoons were not racist, they did not promote hatred - rather they broke a religious law.

    Tolerance requires that you do not have the right to impose your religious laws on people who are not members of your religion.

    So rather than "pity" papers who stood up for the right to freedom of speech, a western invention sure, but one worth preserving, we should celebrate that the threat to that freedom is gone. We should all celebrate that European Muslims are finally coming to understand that freedom of speech is a right in the west that they can not deny.

    In the west you have individual rights, not "community" rights - that's just another way of trying to claim authority that democracy won't allow. There was no reason to "mend community relations" there was a reason for Muslims to grow up and learn about civil rights, like freedom of speech.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tolerance requires that you do not have the right to impose your religious laws on people who are not members of your religion.

    yes, I quite agree, but that isnt "tolerance", its simply freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  3. i will delete any comment of yours that insults the Prophet

    Of course, I expect that. Insults to the prophet can not be tolerated in Islam, precisely for the reason that you deleted.

    But where religion can not be insulted there can be no intellect, there can be no science, there can be no progress.

    You can not have an education that teaches young people to think critically if you can not insult religion.

    The right to put religion in it's place is a fundamental right because it has always been sorely needed.

    Religion is obsolete thought, obsolete philosophy, obsolete science.

    We need to hold on to it because we are all children at times, and we all face death alone. But sometimes we are adults as well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. One more point. Religion is a system that intends to control people for the gain of it's leaders. It has been deliberately designed to deprive men of their reason so that they can turn them into tools of powerful con men.

    Religion is important an example of brainwashing. And it is a great education for people learn to see that side of religion as well.

    If one can learn to avoid being manipulated by the religious leaders of the past, then one can learn to maintain one's freedom in the present.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I could just as easily used "creation science" as the example.

    In every field where mankind has progressed and found reasonable answers, or scientific truth, we did it by first side-stepping religion, and then when we gained a little freedom, bulldozing it out of the way.

    Religion is about as much help in understanding the world or making useful plans as Alzheimer's is.

    And some religion is even poisonous to families, human relationships, freedom, economics, peace and international relations.

    Go rationality!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oper, half of your arguments rest on being (or pretending to be) too stupid to understand what I actually meant.

    Hint, that's not an effective rhetorical technique, and a sure sign of someone who couldn't possibly argue in good faith - as I said, a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete