DISQUS

Andy Merrett · 3 years ago

Yes it's very interesting. I read somewhere that a Muslim cartoonist had published an image of the Virgin Mary with 'bare breasts' (aren't breasts always bare?). A 'few Catholics' expressed concern.

What was said is that this Muslim wouldn't be facing a death threat. Yet seemingly everyone involved in this cartoon has faced threats of violence, intimidation and death. (Sounds like the Animal Liberation Front to me).

We do have to remember that these are extremist, and every religion that hijacks a faith has them. I do feel genuinely sorry for moderate Muslims who are caught up in this.

I'm not saying it's good to mock religion for its own sake - though often it's healthy. I think the reaction of a religion to how it is parodied and mocked says a lot about the religion itself.

It's interesting, and maybe it's the reason why Christians seem to have to put up with it whilst other religions appear to get special treatment, that at the root of the Christian faith is a man who was mocked, beaten and killed - and whose words to his followers were that they would indeed also be mocked and persecuted because of him. It's not surprising that the Christian faith is kicked around in the dirt and not defended, and how extremist groups - both "Christian" and of other systems - can abuse it for their own selfish and evil gains.

I've seen parodies, insulting pictures, rude jokes, Jerry Springer the Opera, yada yada, for all of my life. If anything, it makes my faith stronger. I know it's part of life. I don't go around calling for people to be executed. It's actually against the teachings of Christ. And what's happening here is surely against the true teachings of Mohammed. Misinterpretation is rife.

I've not expressed myself eloquently. The whole situation is totally out of proportion, and I think the perception of the Muslim faith suffers, just as the perception of Christianity suffers when politicians and warmongers use it for their own agenda.

Sigh.

Jim · 3 years ago

This is a win-win for the Administration. By appearing to suck up to the Muslims, they 1) win points with the Arab countries, potentially improving the US image over there and 2) win points with the Christian base who's terrified of the same thing happening here. Methinks this decision was well-thought out and quite calculated.

Part of being a civilized nation is respecting the beliefs of others. Ultra-secularists must (hopefully) eventually realize that they work against their goals when they go out of their way to piss off people of a certain dogma for the sake of "free speech" or art; likewise, the faithful have no right to impose their "beliefs against idolatry" on others, especially with violence. Somewhere in the middle there's a nice flat place most(but not all) of us find tractable.

Now, what really gets me jacked is the US media's refusal to run the cartoons "out of respect for Islam" while at the same time happily reprinting and televising the Washington Post's cartoon of an American soldier amputee. While I'm not exactly a fan of the 'Post or this particular cartoon, it's the blatant duplicity of the situation that I just can't stand.

David Nick · 3 years ago

Andy, you make some excellent points. What I'm trying to point out is even if Christians do have extremists, how many of them are willing to behead someone who has a contrary viewpoint? How many are willing to kill a film director because they made a movie about how Christians treat their women? The answer is a resounding zero.

We have seen plenty of Christian kooks and some would say that David Koresh was that extremist example, and yet, he never went out and killed anyone, just brainwashed them perhaps. It wasn't until out government went after them with haste that things got ugly and turned very deadly.

-Jim, I don't think "sucking up" to the muslim community is beneficial to our country, or diplomatic relations nor does that type of behaviour bode well for our country's freedoms. What this tells me is that our government is willing to appease radical fundamentalists when it suits them. Which in turn means that when the time comes, and our population has a major muslim voting population, anything we say, think, or do, will be turned on us simply because "Allah" forbids it. That's not me sounding paranoid, that is a definite possibility.

Secondly, while our country certainly has been a good example of respecting other groups of people and their beliefs, that doesn't mean that we cannot express our differences for purposes of either opening dialog, or ridicule. In doing so that doesn't mean those who are the subject of jokes or discussion have turned to violence to silence their critics.

In saying that, I also recognize that the history of this country is founded on the blood of many groups of people whom the government, or the powerful and wealthy have sought to eradicate for their ultimate purposes being either "settlement" or "riches" or what have you.

However, ultimately I think that our government should have stayed out of the entire situation. We weren't involved in it, and while individual citizens have every right to speak up in support of or disapproval of, I don't think it was wise to show the two-faced nature of politics and diplomacy. I truly feel it will harm us greatly in the future.

:)

A. J. · 3 years ago

The cartoon is not the cause for the outrage and destruction displayed in many Arab countries even if their religion forbids depictions of their profit.

I think they are using the cartoon as an excuse to be outraged at the Western world, and show it.

In terms of the amputee cartoon, I have this to offer: Who said political cartoons have to funny? I don't think the amputee cartoon is funny at all. I think it's a sad truth. Our servicemen and women are on rotation after rotation. They aren't even fighting, but getting blown up at random.

Denying what's happening to our military and the way Rumsfeld is handling his job is shameful. If a cartoon puts it right in your face, maybe it's time to think about what it really means.

David Nick · 3 years ago

A.J., I think it's a mistake to think that our soldiers are NOT fighting over there, that they are simply hanging out waiting for a chance to get "blown up at random".

I have a brother in law, just returned from Iraq whose mission was to lay out transport routes for supply runs. In doing his job, while he wasn't lobbing bullets at the insurgents, was still fighting the war. His unit, is one of the only units to come back to the U.S. without having any deaths.

Does that mean they didn't fight? No, on the contrary, his unit fought in the war just as much as a patrol unit fights insurgents.

The cartoon was not funny, I agree, but, you don't see Americans running around the countryside blowing up federal buildings, or burning flags do you?

Nor are they lobbying for censorship of its citizens in reform for pro-antiwar minorities.

Aaron · 3 years ago

The cartoon was not funny, I agree, but, you don’t see Americans running around the countryside blowing up federal buildings, or burning flags do you?

Well... there was a guy named Timothy McVeigh...

Jim · 3 years ago

"The cartoon is not the cause for the outrage and destruction displayed in many Arab countries even if their religion forbids depictions of their profit. I think they are using the cartoon as an excuse to be outraged at the Western world, and show it."

I absolutely disagree. You can't group insurgent roadside bomb detonations with the people burning down the Danish embassy -- that's exactly like bombing Iraq 'cuz a bunch of Saudis and Egyptians crashed airliners into buildings.

Muslim clerics are currently calling for the deaths of the cartoonists, Eurpoean lives are being threatened in Gaza and elsehwere, Danish and French products are being boycotted, and Afghan police killed four people in riots today specifically because of the cartoons.

As for the 'Post's cartoon, re-read my original post: I never said anything about its content other than that I wasn't a big fan of either the paper or the cartoon itself. The Washington Post, just like the National Enquirer, has the right to print anything it wants -- subject to libel laws, of course -- without having to get approval from the government, a religious authority, and / or especially me. Furthermore, their right to do so is a right that many of us would defend to the death.

My point is that I think it's disgustingly duplicituous for the US media to (almost without exception) refuse to reprint the Mohammed cartoons "out of respect for Islam" -- a very minority religion in this country -- while running the 'Post's cartoon, which undoubtedly offended a much greater audience here. Either satirical cartoons -- ALL satirical cartoons -- are fair game, or they're not. Personally, I think Allah is about as real as the Tooth Fairy and the Grim Reaper, and really don't like CNN et al deciding what info I can and can't view -- but it's a free country and they can show whatever they like.

That doesn't mean I have to like it -- but certainly it doesn't give me the right to drive downtown and torch the nearest affiliate either, or threaten the author with torture and death.

A. J. · 3 years ago

I meant was most of our soldiers are being killed by raodside bombs. I didn't say they are just "hanging out", and what I meant by not fighting is that they rarely engage the enemy in a conventional way....Like I said before, the amputee cartoon isn't supposed to be funny, it's just the TRUTH....

The attitude of Donald Rumsfeld was depicted quite well in it. He's the one to be angry at. Our troops STILL don't even have adequate body armor! People shouldn't get offended by the messenger, in this case the cartoonist.

In terms of free speech I totally agree with you but don't think there is duality in the media. We aren't reprinting the Muslim cartoons because we don't want to fuel the situation further... and really, there is no point.

About the outrage in the Islamic world, it's not a stretch to say that Muslim frustration with the West just reached a boiling point over those cartoons. It was the match to a powder keg. I'm not excusing the violence, just pointing out an observation.

David Nick · 3 years ago

A.J., Not to make it seem like I'm going after you, but what exactly IS a "conventional way"? Do you mean we're not using tanks, bullets, and bombs to fight wars? Do you mean we're not using ground troops to go after the insurgents? Exactly how do you infer? Because I can tell you that we are using all of our tools in the military arsenal to go after these terrorists.

As far as blaming Donald Rumsfield, come on, you can think better than what the liberals have been touting for "eons".

Donald Rumsfeld is no more to "blame for the war" than Harry Reid is. LOL

He is the Secretary of Defense, but if you want to use the "bad or faulty armor" excuse, then I think you need to go back to previous administrations. They are just to blame than the "token Rummy" guy.

A. J. · 3 years ago

Well, I don't see how previous administrations have anything to do with what is going on today when Republicans have controled Capitol Hill for the last half-decade.

Here is the problem I have with conservatives saying liberals bash Bush too much. Read these comments when Clinton went into Kosovo, and tell me they don't echo exactly what liberals are saying today:

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)


"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99


"You can support the troops but not the president"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."
-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

The only difference is, we got in and out of Kosovo with very few casualties and the region is in far better shape today than it was. The same cannot be said about Iraq.

I just think that our soldiers are dying over there to hold off a civil war, not fight terrorism...
Reports now show that most of the insurgents are Iraqis anyway, not Al Qaida.

Bush himself said in 2000 that the U.S. military should not be used for "nation building." With a real terrorist threat and Al Qaida's leaders still free, Iran's government growing bolder, and Hamas winning elections - it seems much bigger problems have arisen while we've had our hands tied with Iraq for too long.

David Nick · 3 years ago

You just contradicted yourself AJ. You said "Well, I don’t see how previous administrations have anything to do with what is going on today when Republicans have controled Capitol Hill for the last half-decade." and then spewed all of that "canned" garbage about what everyone else said about Klinton during the "Kosovo" years.

You don't get to have it both ways. Either the past is relevant or it's not.

Secondly, you tried to justify Kosovo by saying we were "in and out, unlike Iraq" but your earlier arguement was "Iraq isn't even a conventional war" In otherwords "In and Out". Conventional warfare involves troops, bullets, tanks and bodies. Unconventional warfare is what we did in Kosovo: Bombed the hell out of them with "Carpet Bombing, Precision Aerial Strikes, without laying foot on the ground".

So please, when you make an arguement, participate in the "Blame Bush" bandwagon, atleast be either A) Consistent or B) Know your position and lay a valid arguement.

I don't pretend to know what everyone said, thought, or has done in previous years without research, but my research also doesn't include a list of canned quotes of he said/she said, from some other website.

A. J. · 3 years ago

David -

Read my previous posts here, I think I've been very consistent and make a valid argument.

I did not contradict myself. All the conservative pundits in the last years of Clinton bashed him over and over again using the same comments liberals are using now...

The DIFFERENCE is, Clinton had a plan and it worked. It was over quickly, therefore, the comments didn't hold up and the predictions never surfaced. But direct those comments to Iraq, and they ring true based on what's happened.

By they way, there were U.S. ground troops in Kosovo. It was not just a bombing campaign. Liberals also didn't call conservatives unpatriotic or tell them to leave the country when they voiced their opposition to Clinton.

Quotes exist for a reason, I'm sorry if conservatives have selective memory.