Multiculturalism is ruining equality before the law.

[Jainarayan]

Personally I think some people and organizations like to tug the tiger's tail. It's well known that it's an affront to Muslims to depict Muhammed, for whatever reason it is an affront. It is what it is. People know this. People also know that you don't go into the woods dressed in buckskin during deer hunting season. Lesson... if you get shot, you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[maegin]

If Farage says it it is likely to be wrong..
On the specific point. I do not agree that people have an automatic right to offend.
Moreover, other than inciting conflict, I don't think that causing offence is useful.
I think that in a similar way to how support for Palestine is often a thin veneer for something a lot more objectionable (i.e. old fashioned antisemitism) I think a lot of this blather about free speech is about simple xenophobia.
If those who did the murdering at Charlie Hebdo can incite us to be as offensive as possible to the Muslim community at large I think they would have achieved their aim. That would not be an outcome that I desire.

Question: How is support for Palestine a thin veneer for anti-semitism? If I find the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli government deplorable, and I do, are you saying that this makes me an anti-semite? Are you implying that demonstrating empathy for a country or group of people automatically equates to hatred of the offending group? If so, then I have to object. The accusation of anti-semitism gets thrown around so swiftly sometimes, and automatically shuts down any discussions due to the fear of being labeled.

 

[jreedmx]

People should have the right to offend. And this implies that there are no limits.
It's hypocritical that the media are able to show a picture of Jesus, but are scared and weak at the knees when it comes to showing a depiction of Mohammed.

Thoughts and comments?

It's safe to show a picture of Jesus - the religious culture doesn't have a problem with it. For some reason, I cannot fathom Islam does have a problem with showing the likeness of the Prophet Muhammad. I guess we need to respect their tradition accordingly. Remember also that it was extremist who made the attack and not the majority of Islamic people who probably are shocked by it. The problem it seems to me is that Islamic religious authority need to condemn this kind of terrorism in the name of their religion. Their own culture need to be told by their own religious leaders that kind of behavior is unacceptable and even contrary to the ideals of their religion.

 

[Drolefille]

Personally I think some people and organizations like to tug the tiger's tail. It's well known that it's an affront to Muslims to depict Muhammed, for whatever reason it is an affront. It is what it is. People know this. People also know that you don't go into the woods dressed in buckskin during deer hunting season. Lesson... if you get shot, you have no one to blame but yourself.

You compare an accident with a deliberate act. I don't think those two things are the same.

 

[Jainarayan]

You compare an accident with a deliberate act. I don't think those two things are the same.

Dressing in buckskin and going into a forest knowing that hunters are shooting deer is an accident?

 

[Drolefille]

Dressing in buckskin and going into a forest knowing that hunters are shooting deer is an accident?

The hunter who shoots the person does so accidentally.

People who have killed over "blasphemy" (to sum it up) do so deliberately.

Those are two very different situations. You're sort of implying that those who kill over blasphemy cannot help them selves, it's just an accident. And that is certainly not true.

 

[Jainarayan]

The hunter who shoots the person does so accidentally.

People who have killed over "blasphemy" (to sum it up) do so deliberately.

Those are two very different situations. You're sort of implying that those who kill over blasphemy cannot help them selves, it's just an accident. And that is certainly not true.

You're missing the point. The point is the person dressed as a deer or printing cartoons of the Prophet pbuh knows the outcome and are provoking a response.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

You're missing the point. The point is the person dressed as a deer or printing cartoons of the Prophet pbuh knows the outcome and are provoking a response.

No they don't. In the wake of the Danish newspaper attacks (and subsequent violent riots in the Muslim world) thousands of people from around the world drew pictures of Mohammed in solidarity with the original cartoonists. How many of these people were subjected to violence as a result of doing this?

Aside from that - saying those who depict Mohammed put themselves on harms way removes the onus of responsibility for their actions from the terrorists. They had the choice not to act violently and chose otherwise.

At the end of the day the Muslim scriptures only apply to Muslims - not to anyone else and nor should they. If Muslims don't want to depict Mohammed because they are forbidden from doing so then fair enough but we should not show deference (the terrorists don't want respect, they want deference) to their position by applying their beliefs to ourselves. No religion deserves that kind of treatment.

 

[Drolefille]

You're missing the point. The point is the person dressed as a deer or printing cartoons of the Prophet pbuh knows the outcome and are provoking a response.

I know your point, I'm stating that your comparison is deeply flawed and fails to make your point. Regardless of provokation people always have the ability to choose their responses. A hunter is not choosing to shoot a person, he thinks he is shooting a deer. Those who kill "blasphemers" are choosing to kill a person.

I teach Anger Management, you're not going to convince me that the choice to kill someone is somehow inevitable or out of a person's control. I know it's provocative, and I also argue strongly against being provocative for the sake of provoking. (So EDGY.) But while we can explain the thought process of those who respond with violence, we cannot excuse it or brush it off as inevitable or worse "accidental."

So, in essence: I disagree with the essence of your point - that it's inevitable - and the implication of your comparison - that it's almost accidental.

 

[Jainarayan]

I know your point, I'm stating that your comparison is deeply flawed and fails to make your point. Regardless of provokation people always have the ability to choose their responses. A hunter is not choosing to shoot a person, he thinks he is shooting a deer. Those who kill "blasphemers" are choosing to kill a person.

I teach Anger Management, you're not going to convince me that the choice to kill someone is somehow inevitable or out of a person's control. I know it's provocative, and I also argue strongly against being provocative for the sake of provoking. (So EDGY.) But while we can explain the thought process of those who respond with violence, we cannot excuse it or brush it off as inevitable or worse "accidental."

So, in essence: I disagree with the essence of your point - that it's inevitable - and the implication of your comparison - that it's almost accidental.

It's your right to disagree, but I still maintain you are missing the point, which I maintain I have made. It's not about the reaction... the killing... it's about the knowledge that certain actions will provoke certain responses, whether those responses are right or wrong. I never said that killing someone for blasphemy is an accident and not controllable. I'm addressing the provocation, knowing the result. Yes, it is wrong to react to what is considered blasphemy by killing, but the reaction is known. Why provoke it then whine about it? Will publishing these cartoons over and over change the reaction? No, it is what it is so you avoid it. Why do people knowingly put themselves in harm's way, then cry foul when something happens? Can you sit there and with a straight face tell me that a white person who goes into a black neighborhood yelling racial and ethnic slurs can't expect an emotional response and retribution? C'mon!

 

[Jainarayan]

No they don't. In the wake of the Danish newspaper attacks (and subsequent violent riots in the Muslim world) thousands of people from around the world drew pictures of Mohammed in solidarity with the original cartoonists. How many of these people were subjected to violence as a result of doing this?

Aside from that - saying those who depict Mohammed put themselves on harms way removes the onus of responsibility for their actions from the terrorists. They had the choice not to act violently and chose otherwise.

At the end of the day the Muslim scriptures only apply to Muslims - not to anyone else and nor should they. If Muslims don't want to depict Mohammed because they are forbidden from doing so then fair enough but we should not show deference (the terrorists don't want respect, they want deference) to their position by applying their beliefs to ourselves. No religion deserves that kind of treatment.

It's thinking like this that will never let the world see peace... total disrespect for other cultures and beliefs because "it's not binding on me". I've never once said, nor will I say, that the reaction is a proper one. And I'm sure millions of Muslims who've been offended by the cartoons have bitten their tongues. But that doesn't excuse the disrespect.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It's thinking like this that will never let the world see peace...

And actions like the terrorists' will never let the world see peace either.

total disrespect for other cultures and beliefs because "it's not binding on me".

This isn't about respect - it's about deference. The idea that we should restrict our behaviour in line with the teachings of a religion we do not follow is supremacist. It insists that tenets of Islam be given a special place in Western legal systems. Would you like it if certain meats like pork or beef were banned because they offended Muslims & Jews or Hindus? Would you like it if all meat was banned because it offended vegetarians? Or vice-versa? If we tried to reverse the impetus and insist that Muslims act in accordance with the sacred text of a religion other than their own there would be outrage in the Muslim world.

Assuming for a moment that this is about respect; they (by "they" I mean the Muslims callling for the blasphemy law and those who say drawing Mohammed is racist/illegal) demand that we respect their religious beliefs but all-too-often Islamic societies fail to respect Western traditions like freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Respect is a two-way street.

I've never once said, nor will I say, that the reaction is a proper one. And I'm sure millions of Muslims who've been offended by the cartoons have bitten their tongues. But that doesn't excuse the disrespect.

I don't believe you would say anything like that. There's no inherent level of respect that is deserved. Not for religious beliefs, not for politics, not for sports or celebrities or fashion, or favourite colour. Any idea is open to criticism, mockery, being made fun of, analysis or discussion. Bad ideas need to be flushed out and exposed for what they are. That we ought to refrain from drawing Mohammed because Muslims may not draw Mohammed is one of the worst ones out there.

 

[Jainarayan]

And actions like the terrorists' will never let the world see peace either.

What do you suggest? Is this really about terrorism? No, it's about an admittedly inappropriate response to something known to be offensive. It's pulling the tiger's tail to get a reaction, knowing full well what the reaction will be.

This isn't about respect - it's about deference. The idea that we should restrict our behaviour in line with the teachings of a religion we do not follow is supremacist. It insists that tenets of Islam be given a special place in Western legal systems.

It is about respect and crossing boundaries. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Would you like it if certain meats like pork or beef were banned because they offended Muslims & Jews or Hindus? Would you like it if all meat was banned because it offended vegetarians? Or vice-versa? If we tried to reverse the impetus and insist that Muslims act in accordance with the sacred text of a religion other than their own there would be outrage in the Muslim world.

That's hyperbole and melodrama. Moreover, those are not an offense to those groups, they are proscribed. Hey, if any Muslim on this site doesn't have a problem with the pictures and cartoons, I'll stand down. I've already agreed that the (over)-reaction is unwarranted, but no one can deny it's unexpected.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

What do you suggest? Is this really about terrorism?

It is. The people who committed these murders and armed groups of their sympathisers are attempting to use our fear of similar attacks in future to kow our societies into accepting their demand: do not depict Mohammed. We need to do the exact opposite. We need to draw Mohammed on a massive scale. Everybody Draw Mohammed Day should be revived - it's more important now than ever since the non-existent right of Muslims to not be offended seems to be trumping our cherished rights to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

No, it's about an admittedly inappropriate response to something known to be offensive. It's pulling the tiger's tail to get a reaction, knowing full well what the reaction will be.

The main difference is a tiger is an animal that reacts on instinct - it has no concept of the harm it will cause lashing out at someone pulling its tail. The terrorists on the other hand made a conscious decision, well informed of the consequences of their actions and were fully aware of the harm they intended to cause. A tiger will lash out at someone pulling its tail not out of a sense of offence but out of a desire to prevent very real injury from being sustained. These drawings caused no real injury to anybody - rather they touched off a sense of offence that is entirely voluntary.

And offence is never a good reason for violence. No, I'm not saying you said it is. Acting in the way you advocate by censoring ourselves from drawing Mohammed sends the message to these people that it is and that their methods were effective. This will only encourage such attacks in future. The best response is to draw more pictures of Mohammed in defiance of these barbarians' threats - which will show them that not only did their actions & threats fail to solve the problem, they actually made things worse.

It is about respect and crossing boundaries. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Which has to be earned - it isn't given as a right. This applies to people as well as ideas. In the parts of the world where Islam holds dominion it has shown all-too-often to be incapable of showing the respect it demands to the religious rights of others. Non-Muslims are frequently and violently persecuted. Their holy sites are damaged or destroyed and Muslims seeking to leave the faith are threatened with death or imprisonment. It's a disgusting state of affairs and shows that Muslims in these countries are willing to cross boundaries in order to fulfil a perverted sense of justice.

That's hyperbole and melodrama. Moreover, those are not an offense to those groups, they are proscribed. Hey, if any Muslim on this site doesn't have a problem with the pictures and cartoons, I'll stand down. I've already agreed that the (over)-reaction is unwarranted, but no one can deny it's unexpected.

It's reversing the impetus of your argument to show you the flaw in your logic, actually. Because these things are proscribed it can lead to people of the groups I mentioned above finding them offensive to their religious sensibilities. Have you never encountered vegetarians who make sweeping statements about the morality of those who eat meat because they personally find the whole process disgusting? The Indian Rebellion of 1857 started because British soldiers (allegedly) had rifle cartridges dipped in pig & cow fat which was proscribed and offensive to Muslims & Hindus respectively.