I’m going to the special hell

FTR, I take the growing disaster in Europe over the Islam-slandering cartoons (but honestly –cartoons? Rioting over cartoons?) seriously. (Post edited to add the word “seriously” because I spaced and forgot it while posting at work. oops. –ed) And this post by Kevin Drum is almost the epitome of Liberal Not Getting It.

I still laughed my butt off at said post. I mean, this is Denmark we’re talking about here. I don’t think they are going to be invading anyone any time soon. What, are they going to burn a bunch of hemp in effigy? (They daren’t use the real thing — the contact high would stop the riots for weeks.)

Honestly, though, it’s really a very serious situation. We shouldn’t joke about it. Which is why I’m almost certainly going to the special hell reserved for molestors and people who talk in theaters (the latter of which I have, I’m embarrassed to say, also been known to do).

(/) Roland X
And actually, the hemp thing, that’d be the Netherlands. But since we’re stereotyping anyway… ūüėČ

50 comments

Shepherd Book (4.00 / 5)

would NOT approve.

a special hell!

by A Missionarys Kid on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 16:09:03 PDT

DArn (4.00 / 2)

You beat me to it!

by HLGEM on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 20:38:09 PDT

Dang! (none / 1)

How very….special.

Cross+Flame, member of the Progressive Seminarians Network [1].

by Cross and Flame on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 14:52:22 PDT

Lol! (none / 1)

Adopt a monk or nun.

by YetiMonk on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 20:46:15 PDT

It’s a continuation of the Paris riots (4.00 / 3)

Muslims in Europe have always felt they are treated like second-class citizens.

So they have a chip on their shoulder, calculatedly.

Whatever it takes to rattle Europe’s cage, that’s good.

Attack Denmark? It’s like us attacking Iraq. It was the one sure thing on the board.

Not that it was unblowable.

by Mike Finley on Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 at 19:29:30 PDT

I wonder… (4.00 / 2)

How much of that is due to the cultural differences in natives and recent immigrants?

In my experience, I have noticed many times that recent Muslim immigrants do not seem to want to integrate into the societies they move into, and even seem to judge natives according to the customs and norms of the society they came from. Perhaps, this was true of all the different ethnicities that immigrated to the States, but I was not around to witness it.

I have a friend in Vienna, Austria who lives in an ethnically mixed neighborhood that is heavily populated by Muslim immigrants, and they are literally closed off from Austrian natives. For example, if Sieglinde went into one of their coffee houses they would serve her because they had to, but they would do everything they could to make her feel unwelcome. Sometimes just walking in her neighborhood is an uncomfortable experience.

On the other hand, here in Southeast Michigan, we have one of the largest populations of Arabs, both Muslim and Chaldeans, outside the Middle East. It is a community that has been settled here for some time. They are well integrated into society; there is no sense of intrusion, only welcome when one is in their community, and yet they still retain their cultural differences. I would say that we are truly blessed by their presence.

What strikes me is, that many of them have been here for three generations, precisely the amount of time Jane Austen said it took to make a gentleman. The point being, perhaps it takes thee generations to assimilate cultural changes and become truly integrated into a new society.

I am That, you are That, all of this is That, and That is all there is.

by shakti on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 16:04:12 PDT

It is the epitome of (4.00 / 3)

liberals not getting it.

As an old “fallen away” early 70’s leftist radical it is surprising to me how little the liberals of today resemble the liberals of yesterday.

I think it would have been a no-brainer in 1972 that those kind of reactionary cartoons could inflame passion in oppressed people. It would have been a no-brainer that the cartoons were not “free speech” at their essence but reactionary and whatever “-ist” applies here (nationalist, racist, etc).

“In my day” (appropriate creaking geezer voice intoned) there was moral right and wrong as seen from the left; it was wrong to take a shot like this; and it was right for those so offended to burn your building down around your ears if you were unable to stop your racist shit. Witness Watts and any number of other urban rebellions in the US over racism. Armed Panthers. Malcolm X.

Is it just that the left has become so centered on religious fundamentalism as the enemy that they cannot see that overt calls to racism and cultural nationalism as shown in these cartoons are reprehensible?

The image of a white conservative President of the United States calling this nonsense what it is while liberals joke about it and minimalize it is too me amazing.

I am sure this will give such liberals something to laugh about at the next World Peace meeting.

Bible in a Year now posted weekly. Index is here

by JCHFleetguy on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:51:03 PDT

Yes, BUT… (none / 1)

Violence is not the answer.

You’re right. Kevin doesn’t get it, and my original post was part of my way of dealing with a) that I thought the post was funny anyway, and b) my resultant guilt.

But violence is not the answer.

Yes, the cartoon in question is offensive. There’s actually a much worse one where a male Arab Muslim — I can only imagine that it’s supposed to be Mohammed, since that’s the point of all the cartoons in the first place — where he’s this white-bearded nutcase with a knife, while two women in (burkas?) full-body outfits stand behind him; all you can see of them are their eyes, which are wide and round with terror. Now that’s obscene, IMO.

Yes, they should be “protected” as free speech in terms of governments staying out of it — and roundly condemned by those of us who aren’t the equivalent of fascists. I’m of “multi-ethnic” origin myself, and bigotry of all stripes disgusts me.

But violence is not the answer!

Malcolm X isn’t the one who ended legalized racism in America. I seem to remember some guy marching and gathering support and preaching peaceful resistance, I think we have a holiday for him now…

It’s one thing to resist cops when they come down to beat up some kids or stop vigilantes when they try to hang a black man for, well, walking while black. My beliefs about combat are simple: “Never start a fight, but always finish it.” But it is another thing entirely to burn down entire city blocks or attack completely irrelevant businesses over f*cking pictures. That’s 100% wrong, full stop, end of argument.

Now I think the boycotts are foolish, but they’re not murderous. They’re an entirely moral response, I just question the strategic judgement involved (unless they’re trying to put a stop to freedom of the press, in which case I do question the morality of it). Speaking out against the bigoted cartoons? Absolutely! I’d call that not just appropriate, but right and even necessary.

But assault? Murder? “Burning someone’s building down around their ears?” Over a gorram cartoon? Um, sorry, no.

I call bullsh*t.

(/) Roland X
I have a dream. It doesn’t involve shooting people.

by Roland X on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 13:13:43 PDT

Well (none / 1)

not to get into a discussion of non-violent vs violent tactics: words matter. Sticks and stones will break your bones; but words can really hurt you.

Again, if the day Martin Luther King, Jr. died a newspaper printed these kind of cartoons about him and blacks – what would the result have been? And what would the response of the left been? Match, gasoline, and outrage are words that spring to mind.

Of course we would have decried the violence; but we would have ASSAULTED the attitudes that could even make someone think this was funny or have allowed a newspaper to honor them with ink.

It would have gotten UGLY – and not over a cartoon but over yet another sharp stick poked in the eye of an oppressed people.

The cartoonist, the newspaper, and anyone who apologizes or minimizes what they did for any reason are without excuse.

I realize you were saying that about your guilt BTW. I was not criticizing you.

Bible in a Year now posted weekly. Index is here

by JCHFleetguy on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 13:39:00 PDT

Burning buildings down around their ears (none / 1)

I have to wonder.

Do you think this is okay? [2]

We’re well beyond hypotheticals here. Embassies — not the businesses involved, not symbols, but actual embassies devoted to diplomacy, aka the talking intended to prevent people from killing each other — are being torched. Not even just the Danish embassy, either. Syrian police had to drive “demonstrators” (I thought we called this sort of behavior “rioting;” maybe we have gotten too PC) away from the Norwegian embassy with water cannons. The Norwegians? What the hell did they do?

Words can really hurt you — if you’re a child, or if someone whose opinion is deeply important to you says them. Adults are, in my world, morally obligated to know better. It’s clear to me that this is a fundamental difference in our world views.

I generally abhor absolutism, but I consider there to be no excuse — none — for causing physical harm to a person over something spoken or written. “The cure for bad speech is good speech” is my mantra here. I don’t claim to be perfect on this; I’d have to work damn hard not to clock someone who truly, deeply insulted my wife in my presence. But I know I’d be wrong to do it. (OTOH, I’d have no compunctions about using my knowledge of the language to rip the insulter in question to teeny, ragged shreds verbally, if I kept my cool sufficiently.)

“Match, gasoline and outrage.” That photo linked above is the result.

(/) Roland X
Eh, they’re all (insert skin color here) anyway, right?

by Roland X on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 17:22:33 PDT

Do not misunderstand me (4.00 / 2)

If I were a Muslim I would not be burning the Danish embassy down. I would hope that at least.

We fundamentally disagree on the power and meaning of language. God spoke the universe into existance with a word. Christ was the word Incarnate. There is verse after verse in the Bible, Old and New Testament, about our tongue as a window to our hearts; and the need to speak non-abusively. Words have power. The pen is mightier than the sword.

Your wife can be far more harmed for a greater period of time by horrible verbal abuse and insults. The pain of a slap goes away.

One of those “liberal” ideas that I support is the need to stop “hate language”. It is assault and should be treated as such.

The conservative (regretably) owners of the newspaper and the cartoonist intentionally (from all indications) set about to insult and inflame Muslims with those cartoons. They were an attack; and an intentional attack at that.

Bible in a Year now posted weekly. Index is here

by JCHFleetguy on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 18:05:17 PDT

Interesting (none / 1)

     You go to great lengths to make excuses for these rioters by saying (or implying) they were somehow justified in these attacks because they were oppressed.  So would you favor a law then that would forbid showing ANY image at ANY time under ANY circumstance which in ANY way denegrated ANY religion (or just yours perhaps)?  None, zip, zilch, nada?
¬† ¬† ¬†Will you now also say that what Osama bin Laden did by striking back at the United States who were commiting, to him, a religious offense ¬†by having soldiers in a base in his ‘holy’ country was justified? ¬†The justification is exactly the same in both cases. ¬†Religious offense of muslim sensibilities = violent reprisal. ¬†I will give the Christians credit. ¬†They at least can take a cartoon without rioting.

Disclaimer: I don’t think that all muslims are represented by those presently burning down embassies, but the faction of Islam who seem ready to resort to violence is not insignificant.

God has no hands but yours to use, no heart but yours to feel, no eyes but yours to see.What will you do with the hands, heart and eyes of God?

by Thameron on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 05:06:30 PDT

I am really at an end (none / 1)

of this discussion – but I will say this.

I am not, and haven’t, justified anything. I am saying that we live in a tinderbox world – especially in regards to Islamic fundamentalists

Just as we were on the verge of race war in this country in the 60’s, Europe and the Middle East are on the verge of religious war.

There are real complaints that the OBL’s of the world are inflaming. The left in particular, with their constant complaints about imperialism, and the exploitation of the Third World, should understand what some of these real complaints are.

To throw gasoline into the tinderbox and then strike a match is the worst kind of callousness and disregard for the circumstances

You would not ignore this kind of extreme hate speech if it were directed at gays, women, blacks, or any number of other groups on this country. In fact, progressives have help pass laws making hate speech a crime in many parts of the US.

So, folk here are saying that free speech is inviolate – yet you desire peace. Huh

Bible in a Year now posted weekly. Index is here

by JCHFleetguy on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 08:09:53 PDT

Sources, please ? (none / 1)

JCH : “In fact, progressives have help pass laws making hate speech a crime in many parts of the US.”

Not that I think it’s impossible, because I know how close to fascist some PC types can be; nevertheless, I’d like to see you back this one up.

BTW – Hate crimes don’t count as “speech”.

by Propheticus Lycanthroponica on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 11:32:38 PDT

There are hate “speech” (none / 1)

regulations all over everywhere. Start with this for an overview. My daughter’s school (I will not link the bad speech regulation) is one.

In general, in the US, hate speech rules and laws have failed to stand up to the Supreme Court, at least at the University level. (Again, reference my daughter’s school). You can however find for yourself the 1st grade boy suspended from school for sticking his tongue out at a girl – sexual harrassment you know.

Ironically, it is Europe and the European Union; plus Canada where “Hate Speech” laws have grown. Type [“hate speech” laws] into a search engine and you will find plenty – especially on the EU’s recent ban on Internet hate speech. They missed this newspaper in Denmark I guess – or maybe not.

Frankly, I am not arguing for “hate speech” laws or restriction of the 1st Amendment and free speech. I am arguing a more general understanding that freedom is coupled with responsibility. The Danish newspapers acted irresponsibly. Those that dismiss this, or minimize it, are not doing much better.

You do not have to slap someone who tells a racist joke; but you should tell them you are offended (even if you are white) and you surely shouldn’t laugh. If someone else slaps him, it shouldn’t come as a shock – and you might wonder who to “blame”.

Just chasing around in Wiki came up with a few articles of interest here:

Bible in a Year now posted weekly. Index is here

by JCHFleetguy on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 13:14:46 PDT

I’m wondering if these folks (none / 1)

can be appeased if PARTY A (nice Americans) over here apologizes for PARTY B over there (presumably thoughtless Danish journalists).

If I were offended about something, I hope I would find amelioration in the sympathies of third parties — folks who witnessed something rude and called it that.

I would further hope that PARTY A were not assigned the responsibility for atoning for PARTY B. That seems unfair and a little wicked.

But … short of these things … it is always a good idea to express sympathy for people who are out of their minds from frustration.

I would say, Sorry, world Muslims …

It was callous and stupid of these people to do or say something that violated a tenet of your faith …

But what does your faith really say about taking offense, creatively taking offense as a political tactic …

Is it really God you are defending at that point …

Or are you yourselves using the sacred image of God to score political points …

Which is just as bad — the same exact thing actually — as what the Danish journal did.

by Mike Finley on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 07:36:41 PDT

As his wife (none / 0)

Your wife can be far more harmed for a greater period of time by horrible verbal abuse and insults. The pain of a slap goes away.

I think I can make that call for myself, thank you.

The phrase “sticks and stones” comes to mind. I also have a condition where the pain of a physical attack might not go away, ever. I’m still suffering from the pain of a minor scald I got four years ago.

I’ll thank you to not try to tell my husband how best to protect me, on those occasions where I might need it. He knows me just a bit better than you do.

I know hardly anyone is watching this diary any more, but I had to say something.

by Morgan on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 14:42:28 PDT

Oh please (none / 0)

you have to know that comment wasn’t specific really to you. Certainly, you cannot believe with the position I have taken that Roland shouldn’t defend you from physical attack – I think he has the right to defend you physically from verbal attack. It is, however, y’all’s choice.

I, btw, think the “sticks and stones” saw is a crock. Words do immense damage to people and always have – ask any person who has suffered years of verbal abuse.

Bible in a Year now posted weekly. Index is here

by JCHFleetguy on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 15:13:21 PDT

Read what I quoted you saying. (none / 0)

In this case, you are wrong. If you meant to speak generally, then you should have spoken generally. If you’re not talking about me, don’t respond to Roland saying “your wife.”

And I’m not saying you said he shouldn’t defend me, I’m responding to what I quoted you as saying.

Yes, words can harm. But I’d rather have someone call me, or my kid, hateful names than have them throwing rocks. Maybe you feel differently, maybe you don’t. But don’t go telling my husband what will or won’t do me more harm.

by Morgan on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 15:28:44 PDT

Let me ask you a question (none / 0)

and apologies if I offended you.

Roland I believe mentioned he was mixed race. Would it be damaging to your son to be harassed daily at school with racial epithats even if it never came to physical attack?

My son (chicano) in my first marriage had a white girlfriend – and was literally run out of high school because the could not walk together without being attacked verbally. He found himself in the office constantly because he would “break” and throw the first punch because of the obscene, racist offensive shit they put up with every day.

Who was harmed most? Pat and Virginia by the horrid verbal abuse the school could not or would not stop – or the people Pat would occasionally punch.

My life, my example, your views.

Bible in a Year now posted weekly. Index is here

by JCHFleetguy on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 15:36:25 PDT

Our son got picked on at school, (none / 0)

(not racial — he’s not Roland’s biological son, and though his bio father is dark he looks about as Aryan as they come). I have no idea why they singled him out, except maybe he was the “smart one” but fell for their BS tactics. He was almost expelled, in the first grade, for responding to verbal taunts by throwing the first punch.

He learned not to hit people for calling him names, because we agreed with the school that a physical response to a strickly verbal attack was unacceptable. Now, if one of those kids had thrown the first punch, well, as Roland’s said before, “Never start a fight, but always finish one.”

FTR, he’s now in 8th grade, making honor roll in the gifted program. No idea where they are these days.

So, our kid, in grade school, learned not to hit first.

“Reputation is what others know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. Guard your honor. Let your reputation fall where it will. And outlive the bastards.” –Aral Vorkosigan, “A Civil Campaign” by Lois McMaster Bujold

by Morgan on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 17:46:27 PDT

Well, (none / 0)

not all of the four kids did. One internalized the hatred of society and drank himself to death at 24. He never threw a punch at anyone up until his death.

Of course, Pat felt that unless he wished to endure everyday was he was enduring (along with his love) – then he was forced to choose Virginia or choose school. He choose Virginia. He, of course, was the child who was humiliated by his teacher in front of the class in the 3rd grade because his clothes were “inappropriate” for school and his mother “should have done better”. They were clean, but patched, clothes – like the poor might wear. His love of school ended in the 3rd grade.

I suppose my question to you was more what the school should have done. Was it appropriate to allow free “hate speech” and tell the victim to essentially “suck it up” and love back.

Bible in a Year now posted weekly. Index is here

by JCHFleetguy on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 18:22:55 PDT

I agree with the thrust of this. (none / 0)

More theft has ocurred in courts of law than in all the dark alleys of the world.

Words are far more hurtful than nuclear weaponsd even.

by Mike Finley on Tue Feb 7th, 2006 at 04:23:43 PDT

I’m giving away my age, but (none / 1)

I remember the King assassination. It was what sparked a great deal of the rioting. King would have been so disheartened to see that kind of response to his death.

As for printing pictures of The Prophet, that was intensely disrespectful and thoughtless. Would The Prophet want embassies torched over it? I don’t know, I’m not Muslim.

I do know from living in Detroit City that a torched earth stays torched, and it makes everyone’s lives harder – and everyone’s hearts too.

Anne the goat judge

by Anne Johnson on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 05:53:11 PDT

Actually, (none / 1)

the boycott of Iraq from 1991-2003 did cost lives – it was murderous really.

Probably the US boycott of Cuba has done the same.

Attempting to destroy the economic life of a country is not a non-violent act.

Bible in a Year now posted weekly. Index is here

by JCHFleetguy on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 14:40:17 PDT

there are two (none / 0)

kinds of boycotts aren’t there?

boycotting inteded to keep onself from being ‘tainted’

boycotting intended to harm

the second is a violence

is the first one too?

by A Missionarys Kid on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 15:55:25 PDT

I think the answer (none / 1)

is “God sees the heart”. The other part of the answer is that I am not a pacifist – so boycotts not being non-violent doesn’t particularly bother me. I just think pacifists should be careful in thinking this is a non-violent practice

The two I mentioned, Iraq and Cuba, are of the first type. Intent to isolate and harm the other so that they will act in the right way. If these were directed at the Communist Party of Cuba, instead of the Cuban people; or the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein, instead of the Iraqi people I might even consider them moral as well as vcrimes)iolent.

If I choose not to eat meat; read porno; drink Johnny Walker; etc. in order to improve my moral or physical life – I really haven’t done much. If I organize a wide boycott in order to help others improve their moral and physical lives – I may do harm to those industries but I am trying to love my neighbor as I love myself.

If I boycott all that stuff to stop the evil purveyors of beef, porn, and booze – well, some of that may also be helping my neighbor but it is likely aimed at damaging my enemy.

What say you about that? Do motives matter?

Bible in a Year now posted weekly. Index is here

by JCHFleetguy on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 16:14:45 PDT

economic harm (none / 0)

to an industry is not the same I think. ¬†People in nations that are targeted for serious boycotts by many other nations pay a higher price. That you would boycott porn industry with many other christians, would harm it, but not damage a nation I don’t think. (or meat industry, or gasoline)

The typewriter industry aint very hot right now, but no one seems to be very much worse off….

I don’t know. ¬†I always thought boycotting nations is not really productive. Exporting our stuff to them might in the end change them more than boycoting, you know?

by A Missionarys Kid on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 19:03:57 PDT

So one day Jesus… (none / 1)

… is walking along the street with a crowd following Him, and He comes across a bunch of men preparing to stone a prostitute to death. ¬†And one of the men says to Jesus, “this woman is an adulteress, and the law says any who commit adultery should be stoned.”

Jesus turns to them and says “let whoever is without sin cast the first stone.”

A stone sails through the air, striking the woman in the middle of the forehead, and she falls over dead.

Jesus turns to the crowd, sighs, and says “you know, mom — sometimes you can be a real pain in the ass.”

Is there any difference between the joke I posted and the political cartoon that has the Moslem community in Denmark (and other places) riled up?

I am a Conservative Christian

by The Baptist Death Ray on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 18:20:11 PDT

Besides (none / 1)

cultural, religious, social and political differences of monumental proportions

No

Bible in a Year now posted weekly. Index is here

by JCHFleetguy on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 18:26:39 PDT

I’m not sure I understand what you mean. (none / 1)

Certainly there are political differences — the joke I posted wasn’t particularly political at all, whereas the comics that are getting everyone pissed off are making political statements. But I’m a little lost on the rest of it. Are there no Catholics in Denmark?

I am a Conservative Christian

by The Baptist Death Ray on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 18:58:38 PDT

We are talking about (4.00 / 2)

how a Muslim might react to a cartoon of Mohammad as opposed to how a Christian might react to something about Mary or Jesus.

So, lets be accurate. The paper runs a cartoon of Mary having group sex with the Apostles right before the last supper. Other papers in Europe pick up the cartoons and run it.

Do you honestly think that would happen?

If it did, would Christians riot? No, probably not. The paper would have no advertisers. If they do not own their own press they might not have one to use.

Now Muslim youth in Europe are feeling alienated. There were riots in a number of cities in the last two months. Islamic countries have centuries of history with western European imperialism. There are no racial overtones in the Mary thing; but there is in the Muslim one. Islamic terrorism is a worldwide issue.

On top of that, Islam takes images and idols much more seriously than Christianity.

Now if Norwegian papers wish to blaspheme the Gods of their cultural heritage that is a different issue than blaspheming someone else’s.

Bible in a Year now posted weekly. Index is here

by JCHFleetguy on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 19:20:58 PDT

Free speech requires (none / 0)

the right to be offensive.

I am a Conservative Christian

by The Baptist Death Ray on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 19:40:54 PDT

And good taste and responsibility (none / 1)

require restraint

Bible in a Year now posted weekly. Index is here

by JCHFleetguy on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 19:45:11 PDT

lack of restraint (none / 0)

is not an excuse for gutting free speech.

I am a Conservative Christian

by The Baptist Death Ray on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 20:01:13 PDT

I will stop the tennis match (none / 0)

and just assume you think any american newspaper has the right to print any obscene, misogynist, racist, inflammatory stuff they like in the name of free speech; and that the objects of this stuff should just be happy they are not not actually lynching someone.

Be real

Bible in a Year now posted weekly. Index is here

by JCHFleetguy on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 20:09:26 PDT

and *I*, in turn, (none / 0)

will assume your definition of free speech includes only the people who say things you agree with…

I am a Conservative Christian

by The Baptist Death Ray on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 20:13:22 PDT

and you know that is wrong (none / 0)

Bible in a Year now posted weekly. Index is here

by JCHFleetguy on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 20:32:07 PDT

Some would demand … (none / 0)

… that gay folk practice “responsibility & restraint” by staying out of sight and in the closet.

Fuck that shit and the self-righteous attitude that spawns it.

by Propheticus Lycanthroponica on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 01:00:12 PDT

Frankly (none / 0)

this is the opposite of that.

This is a newspaper printing cartoons showing leering gays lining up to watch young children take a bath.

And telling the outraged gays to get over it – it was their right to print the lies.

Bible in a Year now posted weekly. Index is here

by JCHFleetguy on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 08:15:00 PDT

the way I heard it (none / 0)

Jesus got hit in the center of the forehead by the rock. Put his hand to his head in pain and yelled “Mother PLEASE”

Heck, christian preachers have the best christian jokes.

But put up a picture of a crucifix in a liquid and call it “Christ in P**s” and see what happens

by A Missionarys Kid on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 19:07:29 PDT

From what I recall… (none / 0)

nothing even remotely close to what’s happening in Denmark.

I am a Conservative Christian

by The Baptist Death Ray on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 19:39:51 PDT

nope (none / 0)

lots of anger. lots of angry speech. probably even death threat speech. but no burning as far as I remember.

by A Missionarys Kid on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 20:07:03 PDT

That’s hilarious to Baptists (none / 0)

but just a bit close to the bone for Roman Catholics!

Because — feelings being raw everywhere — they feel a continual assault on their veneration of the BVM.

Not that they should burn your house down …

But we are at least 50% responsible for the fellings we inspire.

by Mike Finley on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 05:20:31 PDT

Get ! Over ! It ! (none / 1)

Living peacefully in the real world requires accepting that I can choose to be offended about almost anything at almost any time, for almost any length of time, or I can feel the lizard-brain flare of anger, let it pass and move on.

It also seems that a delegation of Imams from Denmark deliberately added three far more inflammatory cartoons – which the Danish paper never had, let alone published – to a pamphlet which they then circulated to the entire Middle East – see blog here.

I’ve looked at the original cartoons and a few are pretty scathing, but hardly worthy a rampage of rioting and property destruction. At this point, it is the sacred duty of Muslim moderates to loudly condemn such barbarism.

by Propheticus Lycanthroponica on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 21:03:18 PDT

Follow-Up (none / 1)

Beliefnet has a really good column about this uproar entitled One Picture, A Thousand Outcries written by Signe Wilkinson, Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist for the Philadelphia Daily News, in which she states “I draw to help prevent a world where others make decisions for me. And I’m willing to risk being called anti-Muslim for it.”

by Propheticus Lycanthroponica on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 00:56:18 PDT

Problem is, (none / 1)

“moderate” Muslims are not in the same religion as the Muslims you are talking about.

In the U.S., Baptists could hardly be expected to restrain infuriated Episcopalians.

And the differences over there are about far bloodier contentions.

by Mike Finley on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 05:24:24 PDT

Moderates … (none / 1)

… of all stripes, eveywhere in the world, have a scared duty to speak against extremism in religion, government and society because the world is entering a truly dangerous period. A period we may or may not emerge from intact, given that nuclear technology has become a black market item.

For the first time in history, extremists have (or will soon acquire) weapons to percipitate a global conflagration that will literally wipe most cultures and much of life from the face of the planet. And some Christians relish the idea of sounding the trumpets of Armaggedon.

Fundamentalism NEVER knows when to stop because it’s utterly misdirected – it’s an attempt rid oneself of internal fears via elimination of external triggers.

It no longer matters what sect / denomination / religion or philosophy one is (or is not) a member of, Mike. Evil is again loose in the world and World War III will indeed be the war to end all wars because should it happen, there will be nothing left.

Except the cockroaches …

by Propheticus Lycanthroponica on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 12:02:24 PDT

What medium (4.00 / 2)

should the Baptists use to communicate to the dreaded Episcopalians?

There isn’t one that A has access to that B reads … unless it’s the news, which only covers disasters.

NBC is not going to show news of a Baptist lecturing to Episocpalians. Neither will Al-Jazeera.

I’m not disagreeing with you in principal. We should all correct one another’s excesses.

I’m just pointing out the structural difficulties.

The Sunni Muslims of Qatar are not listening to what the Shia Muslims of Bali have to say.

Then, too, cowardice may play a part, as I think you are suggesting. In the US Muslims are pretty scared of the political dramas playing our around them. They also don’t feel they have credibility back in the Middle East. And again, no one in Turkey is listening to the Muslims of Michigan.

by Mike Finley on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 12:21:32 PDT

The Muslims apologized (none / 0)

http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/

But …

Will the apology suffice?

I’m betting it won’t change much.

by Mike Finley on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 15:07:26 PDT


[1] Link was to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/progressive_seminarians/
[2] Link was to http://apnews.excite.com/image/20060204/SYRIA_PROPHET_DRAWINGS.sff_DAM117_20060204142538.html?date=20060205&docid=D8FIK3M81

Leave a Reply

Due to excessive spambots, you must be logged in to post a comment. Guests may log in with username and password *guest*.

AWSOM Powered