Simply clueless
Can these guys truly not see that to portray Mohammed in a cartoon- a violation of one of the most basic strictures of Islam- is an insult extended, not only to terrorists and rioters, but to every single Muslim in the world- even the most benign, polite, peaceful, law-abiding, and fair-minded?
I continue to be stunned that anybody can defend a mean-spirited mortal insult directed against an entire religion as somehow a gesture in behalf of free speech, just because some members of that religion- even a large percentage- are homocidal and totalitarian maniacs!
Even if one suggests that Islam as such has a tendency in that direction, does one deliberately and mortally insult an entire world religion on the ground of a tendency?
I'm sorry, but I'm at a loss to see how any grown-up can defend those cartoons. What we're dealing with here is Serrano's Piss Christ- except somebody else's religion is the target this time.
Comments
Next, They Came for Valentine's Day
I understand your concern for respect toward people of faith, especially since you experienced ultimate disrespect in the ***A. We need to be careful, however to understand both Islam and what is being perpetrated by Moslems as well as their purpose in their protests, peaceful or otherwise.
I have been warning against the dangers of Islam for over ten years now. First, Islam in its essence is opressive. "Islam" does not mean peace, but submission. When Moslems talk of peace, they talk of total submission of the world to Islam. Second, Islam is intrinsically political. It has been spread by violence since the days of Mohammed. Third, Islam is basically dishonest in its dealings with non-Moslems. The doctrine of Taqqiyah encourages lying to deceive the infidel. The fact that the Danish imam was talking in conciliatory tones to the public in Denmark while preaching in the most vile and hate-filled way in Arabic is but one recent example of maxim from the Qu'ran that war is deceit. Fourth, Moslems wish to be insulted at the drop of a hat. It allows them to threaten and cajole and incrementally bring about submission among the infidels. Fifth, it is the stated goal, affirmed by action, to institute Sharia (Islamic law)in the West. A recent effort in Canada was only defeated by a couple of votes. Moslems in Australia have been suing and threatening Christians who dare to quote the Qu'ran to point out basic tendencies in Islam. For Moslems, only Allah's law, Sharia, has any validity. Moslems in western nations feel no loyalty or duty to obey man-made laws. There is no understanding of natural law, only revealed law. Western laws are thus regarded as usurpations of Allah's law. Sixth, Moslems regard non-moslems as sub-human. They have no rights over against Moslems. That non-Moslems are allowed to live depends on them being not only submissive, but humiliated and forced to pay a sort of protection money (jizyah). The tactics of the Moslems seen in recent weeks is tried and true, based on the example of Mohammed. What would Mohammed do? is a basic part of Islam. The sad thing is, Mohammed did a lot of awful things to anyone who got in his way. Images of Mohammed are present in the art of Persia and the former Mogul empire. All images of any animate creature are forbidden in some Islamic circles, but note how images of Islamic leaders are are posted all over the Middle East.
Moslems in Europe have been demanding that their law and (in-)justice be made sovereign in their neighborhoods. They have demanded special privilege in their host countries. One country, Denmark, has not knuckled under. They were not good dhimmi (protection racket victims) and so the rioting began. It is not a question of offense. That is the pretense. The issue is whether non-Muslims will submit. The Muslim rage comes from the refusal of the Danes to subject their laws and society to Islam. They faced the choice of reverting (Moslem lingo for conversion), being humiliated and extorted (becoming dhimmi) or being killed. Some Danish editors saw their culture laws being undermined and asked for sketches as an act of defiance. It is the defiance which enrages the Arab street.
I have come to the point where I intend to by an armband with the Danish flag on it and wear it just as the Danes wore stars of David in defiance of the Nazis. You may have noticed how the Muslim mobs burn both American and Danish flags, but make a special point of stomping on the Danish flag. Why? Because it is the cross they are stomping on. That is offensive too. I have never been of the "Kill a Commie for Christ" persuasion. I will not, however, submit in any way to Islam, overtly or subtly.
As Christians, we face a two-front war: secularists and Islam. We face that situation before: Fascism and Communism. We Lutherans have carried on such a struggle for centuries: (Romanism and Calvinism). From my perspective, at the present time, Islam poses the greater threat than secularism. Secularism at present is like pesty flies which distract. They can be dangerous because they transmit diseases, but for now can be easily and effectively dealt with through robust debate and healthy, faithful apologetics. Islam is not open to debate, but offers only deceit or oppression.
I have personally dealt with Moslems. I have had many long conversations. In the end, it comes down to submit or die. I have literally had a Moslem's hands around my throat because I questioned his pawing and obnoxious behavior over against an American female student. I have no illusions. Non-offensiveness cannot become a principle, because Islam will exploit it. Just to question Islam is to give offense.
Bob, you and I refused to give quarter to ***A weasels. Let's not give quarter to people who would by sword wrest the Kingdom from Christ. Luther's books would be burned by Moslems (not just by the radical ones) because he insults the prophet, calling him the worst of all heretics.
Bob, I know you are sincere and concerned in your position on the cartoons. I hope you have not been deceived by the so-called religion of peace into seeing Moslems as the victims. I remember a certain ***A pastor in Dubuque who claimed that Christianity was the cause of all the problems in the world and that Islam was so much more peaceful. He cited the Crusades as an example of Christian imperialism. Because he was not the brightest or most learned bulb in the candelabra, he ignored hundreds of years of Islamic terror, butchery, oppression, and conquest to which the Crusades were a reaction. I think we need to see the cartoons in the same light. They were not gratuitous insults (some of the pictures are actually very bland). They were reactions to Moslem attempts to force Danes into submission. The reprinting of the images in Norway was done by a Christian magazine which also saw the threat of Moslem terror (80% of the rapes in Norway are committed by Moslems who have no respect for women, let alone non-Moslem women). In many European nations, Moslems do not allow police to enter their neighborhoods. It is conquest from within. Can a nation maintain sovereignty or preserve basic human rights if they are allowed to be undermined by people whose ultimate allegiance is to the Ummah and who would replace all our structures with the Kaliphate?
Bob, I hope you do not take personal offense at my disagreement with you. I hope you understand my position. I hope even further that you would come closer to my understanding of the situation. In the end, though, I remain your friend and brother in spiritual arms. I'll cover your backside from the followers of Mohammed.
Your cheeseheaded Lutheran fanatic friend.
Another cheesehead here. Actually from Racine, a town with deep Danish roots. (Have you tried the kringle?)
I appreciate your comments. I am becoming more and more concerned about Islam - and wondering where this cartoon scandal will lead us.
Some of our leaders want us to believe Islam is a religion of peace, but the events of this week don't support that position very well.
What's ironic to me is that these riots are almost proving the points of the cartoons themselves....
"HEY, WHAT DO YOU MEAN WE ARE A VIOLENT RELIGION! FOR SAYING THAT, WE SHOULD KILL YOU!"
It's not that I see the Muslims as victims. Nor is it that I am unaware of the extremely problematic aspects of Islam, which lie at its very core. Nor still is it that I underestimate the challenge and threat posed by Islam.
Rather, I am concerned for the West, and for our own Christian souls. I am concerned for those so consumed with understandable and absolutely legitimate digust with Islam that they fail to see that being a a boor doesn't become less boorish because of the identity of those at whom that boorishness is aimed. Middle fingers are simply not extended in love, nor is the gesture particularly a mature one.
The publication of those cartoons was a sophomoric stunt. It was not an act of heroism. It was not done as a matter of principle. It made no particular point. To be blunt, it had all the eloquence, profundity and content precisely of an extended middle finger.
It was intended as precisely that- and perceived by the Muslims with absolute accuracy. This is not to defend or excuse their response. It's only to recognize that it was a response which nobody could have failed to foresee. What else did the bozos who published those cartoons expect to happen? If you're dealing with homocidal maniacs, responsible people act with more discretion, not less, precisely out of concern for those who might become victims of the mania of the maniacs!
It was a boorish act- and more than that, an irresponsible one. What did those who published the cartoons think was going to happen? I simply have a hard time with the idea that the perpetrators of an irresponsible, juvenile stunt whose likely murderous consequences were obvious in advance should be regarded as heroes!
No, gentlemen. I do not disagree with you at all. I just don't think you're seeing that one need not approve of Islam or any of its works, to pull any punches in one's condemnation of the violence, or see the Muslims as innocent victims, or any such thing, to see that good manners are good manners, that those who published those cartoons as a deliberate provocation are also responsible for the violence- and that middle fingers ought not to be extended toward others- even Muslims- and then used to help make ths sign of the Cross!
I commend Dr. Siemon-Netto's blog entry, linked to above, to you all. I think he handles the issue in admirably balanced fashion.
And balance is the issue here. There simply are no good guys in this story.
9:28 PM
But that is the state of the press today. It is diseased with its own self-importance, and loves to foment just what it has, deluding itself it is fostering debate. Then it likes to stand back and smile smugly at what is has 'accomplished.' And consider itself indeed 'heroic.'
The press is the biggest gang of useful idiots any iconoclast ever had.
BTW, Pommeraneus, I'm aware that you can buy portraits of Mohammed in any Tehran bazaar. Contrary to the teachings of classical Islam though the portrayal of the human form is, it is not a stricture anywhere near universally observed (in fact, if I'm not mistaken, it's mainly a Sunni hangup).
But it's still a middle finger.
The pictures of Muhammad weren't even that bad. Most of them made no negative comment at all, and the ones that did said nothing more than I would gladly say with words, because it is true.
The only reason the cartoons were published in the first place was precisely as a deliberate affront to Muslims for whom the portrayal of Mohammed is itself sacrilege. Were it not for that fact, the publication of the cartoons would have been utterly pointless.
The issue isn't what the cartoons said. The issue is that the motivation for publishing them was the knowledge that the depiction of Mohammed would be seen as precisely what it was intended to be: a provocation.
Do those cartoonists and newspapers have a right to be deliberately offensive? Sure. Without question.
Do the Muslims have a right to be upset about having been deliberately offended?
Again, yes, without question.
To make it an unqualified free speech issue is to deny the second premise. It's to take the position which all too many folks take in our culture: that if I have a right to do something, I'm immune from criticism for using that right irresponsibly.
Now, the Muslims have gone absolutely stark, raving, psychotic with their response. Their response is out of all proportion, and is even more irresponsible and inappropriate than the original provocation. This issue can be legitimately seen- indeed, it must be seen- as a civility issue, every bit as much as the cartoons themselves.
The point is that there can be no good guys here. It's fine to say that we should deplore the murderous Islamic mobs even more than the idiotic cartoonists and publisher. But both have to be deplored, or we
wind up defending not freedom, but licence. And especially in our culture these days, that's a major distinction!