All of this would have been avoided had you simply showed up to Llamapalooza tonight...

Unfortunately, its not the radicals alone that pull these stunts. Rather it is precisely those mainstream Muslims that embolden and support the vicious radicals, by their very silence, if not outright support!
Islam is no "religion of peace" and no respecter of tolerance. This whole episode reveals that charade and is noteworthy for exposing the lie.
Maybe not all Muslims are bad, but let those who represent the enlightened side of their religion take a stand! Something about...."all it takes for evil to triumph,is for good men to do nothing"??

A familiar argument, one not without merit. But some Muslims have spoken out against the stupidity:

However, Iraq's leading Shiite cleric suggested that Islamic extremists responsible for suicide attacks and terrorism were partly responsible for tarnishing the image of Islam.

"We strongly denounce and condemn" the caricatures, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani said in a statement on his Web site. But he also referred to "misguided and oppressive" elements within the Muslim community whose actions "projected a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood."

"Enemies have exploited this ...to spread their poison and revive their old hatreds with new methods and mechanisms," al-Sistani said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq;_ylt=AlDEsRjPnotyEHJLlSI9n6lX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

If it isn't all of them, Bill, it's most of them.
Face it; Where are the long lines of clocal muslims angry at what's been done to their peacful religion? There are none, or not enough to make any difference.

The answer to that question is very complex, though it's a good question. But, short answer: the US has only given a crap and attempted to do anything about Islam's violent expression for about 5 years now - and sea changes involving the modernization of medieval societies through democratization take more than 5 years. Read these:

http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2006/01/muslim-arabs-favor-democracy.html

http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005/07/still-no-wars-between-democracies.html

Exhibit "A", your Honor:

To quote Neal Boortz:

Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
A Muslim attacks a missionary children’s school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
Let’s go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage
Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.

Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.

I rest my case, Bill.

Also, historically, look at another group's reaction to the acts of their ancestral ethnic homeland : the Neisei in the US during WW II.
When something similar happens with the "Muslim street", I'll start granting a large exception to the generalization.

Exhibit B:

The Free Muslims Coalition is a nonprofit organization made up of American Muslims and Arabs of all backgrounds who feel that religious violence and terrorism have not been fully rejected by the Muslim community in the post 9-11 era.

The Free Muslims was created to eliminate broad base support for Islamic extremism and terrorism and to strengthen secular democratic institutions in the Middle East and the Muslim World by supporting Islamic reformation efforts.

http://www.freemuslims.org/about/

Exhibit C:

"Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks"

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

"I rest my case," Earl T. Give me a break.

The point is, one does not change the negative dynamic that you point out by declaring all Muslims evil, taking your marbles and going home, or by inciting our government to do so.

Lessee, the groups you cite as protesting the vile acts of the radicals total, What? 10,000? Maybe? Versus the other 1.399 billion in active or silent support of those radicals. And I can't say that miniscule minority has taken out ads in the NY Times or purchased time on Al Jazeera espousing their position. Nor do they appear to attempt spreading their point of view.
I'll give them credit for their start, but its the guy in the Muslim street who needs to show a bit of understanding here to garner sympathy and support.

YOU WIN, EARL! SCREW ISLAM! IT'S AN "EVIL RELIGION!"

UNTIL "THE GUY IN THE MUSLIM STREET" SHOWS TOLERANCE AND MATURE COMPREHENSION OF COMPLEX SUBJECTS, I SURE AIN'T GONNA!

What? 10,000? Maybe? Versus the other 1.399 billion in active or silent support of those radicals.

Did you get those numbers using, like, science and such? I take the point, but I reiterate: the answer is not to loudly declare Islam an inferior "death cult," take one's marbles and go home. In fact, you haven't even suggested any "answers," just that Muslims generally suck, and that they'd better shape up or ... well, or something.

Thank you! You got "it"? It is an evil thing! Why pussyfoot around with that? (Gee, the numbers are arithmetic. Any reason you have to get insulting or did I just strike the little chord of doubt about your whole position? Seen that happen a lot!)

As others have noted elsewhere (the Pope, for example) there is no mechanism internal to Islam that would allow it to undergo a "Reformation". Islam sees itself as a self-contained, unchallengeable, unchangeable set of beliefs established by the incontestible Word of the Prophet. There is no prospect of a "Luther" on the Muslim horizon. That makes their manner particularly dangerous.
Oh, I'm currently not paid enough to come up with solutions, that's your job!

Any reason you have to get insulting or did I just strike the little chord of doubt about your whole position?

Oh yeah, you're so good, you got me. I'd say it's more:

A. I'm half-kidding.

B. I'm slightly annoyed by you ignoring the fact that I acknowledge the points you keep making over and over, points that are rather common right-wing boiler-plate on Islam ("most Muslims are passive regarding the radicals in their midst." Yes, I know) You haven't addressed how to address the issue, aside from "those guys better shape up." In addition, you obviously didnt read the second link I provided, or you wouldn;t have said this:

Lessee, the groups you cite as protesting the vile acts of the radicals total, What? 10,000?

The groups listed represent far more than 10,000 Muslims.

As far as Islam's internal structure, I've specifically addressed that issue in a previous post, one linked in the main post below this one. I'll let you find the link.

No Bill, this row started when you implied that the Danes were some how responsible for the rioting that has followed the publication of the cartoons.
All that have disagreed with you have been greeted with a personal insult of some sort. First, it was that we couldn't read. Then we were chimps, now you imply that we are Muslim hating bigots.
Counseling the rest of us to be careful not to attribute the behaviour of the Imams of many mosques both in Europe and in the Middle east, as well as the leaders of Syria, Iran, Al Qeada, Hamas and Fatah, to Muslims as a whole is a service. Implying that we are only upset about threats of beheadings and Embassy burnings becuase we are stupid, sub-human or bigoted is beyond the pale.
I'll be wasting my time somewhere else from now on, thanks.

this row started when you implied that the Danes were some how responsible for the rioting that has followed the publication of the cartoons.

NOTHING IN MY POST IMPLIED THAT, YOU RETARDED DYSLEXIC CHIMP WITH RAID IN YOUR EYES (BECAUSE THE RAID CAN RESEMBLED READI-WHIP GOODNESS).

MY POST DIDN'T EVEN MENTION THE DANES OR ANYTHING REMOTELY TIED TO WESTERN RESPONSIBILITY FOR MUSLIM RIOTING, WHICH, AGAIN, IS "BAD" - IT DISCUSSES HOW RIGHT WING BLOGS OVERREACTING TO ISLAMIC RADICALISM HURT THE CAUSE OF ENDING IT. I ALSO DO NOT REMOTELY ATTRIBUTE BEING "UPSET BY BEHEADINGS" WITH "BEING A BIGOT." THIS IS SO BIZARRE AN INTERPRETATION, I ACTUALLY DOUBT YOUR SANITY.

BTW, I'M TYPING IN ALL CAPS IN HOPES THAT YOU'LL UNDERSTAND BETTER, WHAT WITH YOU BEING UNABLE TO READ, AND ALL. I'VE DEBATED COUNTLESS INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT RESORTING TO AD HOMINEM, BUT YOUR LEVEL OF STUPIDITY IS "BEYOND THE PALE," IN A CLASS OF ITS OWN.

DO THE CAPS HELP?

Bill,

You sure you don't have a page at the Daily Kos?

I mean you write in all caps, call everyone with the temerity to question your wisdom names, and accuse everyone who does not bow befoire your your mighty intelligence stupid. It just seems you'd fit really well there.
Or maybe, having realized how laughably silly your position is you have become embarassed and decided to lash out at all those around you, either way you haven't covered yourself with glory, spittle maybe but not glory. Froth on brother!

Corvan -

All joking aside, there are several people that directly challenged my position intelligently, without egregiously misrepresenting my position, under both this post and the previous one. You are not one of them.

The level of cognitive dissonance necessary for you to draw the interpretations that you did from my posts - and then misrepresent my point as ideas that I actually find OFFENSIVE - is stunning.

I truly have no respect for your ability to think, debate, read, interpret, you name it. If it helps you feel better to project the idea that my attitude towards you is how I feel about all those that disagree with me, go for it.

But the truth is, I think you're an idiot. Not Earl T, not Bithead, not Sue Bob, all who disagree - JUST YOU.

Go away.

corvan -

Let's see how you like it:

Why did you keep implying that Muslims killed Jesus Christ and have cloven feet?

Oh wait - you DIDN'T imply any of that, did you? Frustrating that someone could draw such odd implications out of your comments and spit them back at you in the form of "debate." How does one argue with that?

Sadly I don't thing being an idiot has anything to do with the affinity for straw-man's Bill. I'm a grad student in philosophy and I get impunged with them all the time from other (presumably) intelligent grad students and professors.

It's utterly infuriating and a product of intellectual laziness, a narrom mind, and self-assured certainty in one's own righteousness more than anything. If you KNOW that you are right, then one need not consider criticism on its own terms...it is easier to distort in pigenhole it into a particular and easily refutable peg.

Oh I see, ten thousand gleaming pardons, I am so very sorry. We're not mad at the Danes. We're mad at all the right wing bloggers who reproduced the cartoons, mentioned the cartoons or said that the cartoons were no reason to go off on a tear, threaten genocide and burn down an embassy or three. Those bastards!
We never meant to imply that there should be any response to those "hateful" cartoons. We just meant to say that the cartoons were so destructive, so vile, so wretched, so crass, so rude, so horribly "provocative" that they should never have been drawn, or for that matter, shown, anywhere at any time by any one. Nor should their existence have been alluded to. Nor should they have been even thought about... That's so much better. What do you call that Bill, a penalty free thought crime?
Look, I'm glad you find the thought that the response to the cartoons may have been justifed offensive. Having said otherwise I am corrected. "Bill does not believe the response to the cartoons was justified." I was wrong. I am so sorry. I will never say such a horrible, distateful, crass, rude, provocative thing again. Becuase Bill is my moral and intellectaul superior, and an example of all that man should be.
Therefore, I can never point out that believing the response was not justified ruins the rest of his argument. I can't point out that moderates of any religion would never react this way to poorly conceived cartoons.
I can't point out that moderate muslims should have to put up with the same provcations in the give and take of life that moderate Christians, Jews, and Hindus have to.
I can't point out that the Muslim leaders in Britian, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iran would be using these cartoons to fan the flames of extemist hate whether they were ever "mentioned" by the rest of us vicious conservatives or not.
I can't point out that if it weren't these cartoons that were annoying them it would be something else, maybe something that wasn't true (Koran in the toilet, thanks again Newsweek).
I can't point out any of these things because, that would be so horribly provocative that moderate muslims might not be moderate any more, and if that happened, gosh, the world might look a lot like it looks today. And Bill would have to pretend that he is outraged, outraged that anyone would notice that claiming a cartoon is so awful it can never be shown is pretty much endorsing censorship, and gives those who use the cartoons as an excuse to murder and pillage carte blanche to act as they damn well please. And if someone did that, Bill might have to actually think thorugh what he says before he freaking says it. And that would lead to posts all in caps and name calling and all sorts of other pouting, foot stmaping and red faced ugliness. And we can't have that...can we Bill?

I also couldn't point out, as Mark Steyn has, that these cartoons were first published months ago. Nor could I point out that it seems pretty damned strange that the cartoons suddenly produce a massive up swell of spontaeous anger months later, now that Iran has been referred to the Security Council. No, I couldn't point that out becuase if I did that would be just to provocative. It might make moderate muslims immoderate. It might just send otherwise peaceful-kind people off into a rage where they behead, kidnap murder and hi-jack, for the rest of their lives, no less. No, no, no, calling the cartoons hateful, pointing out what troglodyes all who post them are, that doesn't give the people that are organizing this fiasco a reason to be. No, it isn't exactly what they want. No it doesn't encourage what they do and help their political ends. No sir, no justification there. None at all.
Again I apologize to you, apologize humbly and on bended knee. What I assumed was an intentional act on your part wasn't intentional at all. You were just uhnable to reason through the situation to its natural conclusion. I should have realized, and adjusted accordingly. The green as they say, was playing very, very slow.

Typical, get the argument wrong then call everyone names who disagrees with you.

None of the major players or for that matter any of the minor players on the rightside of the blogsphere are calling muslim people bad. We are all calling Islam bad.

For the last time: I do not think I "got the argument wrong," nor was I "just uhnable (sic) to reason through the situation to its natural conclusion." I simply don't like individuals representing that I wrote things that I most definitely did not. This is based around the concept of "reading comprehension," which is critical to an honest, accurate debate over a given piece of writing.

By calling "Islam bad," you call all "Muslims bad" by insulting their faith. Your inability to note that the two are intertwined speaks to your arrogance and intolerance.

I don't know if you are a Christian, but I certainly don't write terribly nasty things about Christianity on this blog, despite the fact that I've seen it used as a basis for some fairly bad behavior, in certain cases. Why? Because to do so would unfairly insult a lot of people that practice Chrsitianity, and have nothing at all to do with the "bad" behavior of others. This would alienate them from any argument that I'm trying to make. (no this is not directly analogous to Islam, as they have much larger problems with violence and intolerance in their midst - MUCH larger)

If espousing rationality and tolerance is getting an argument "wrong," then again, call me "wrong."

Bill, you're not being logical.

Do we declare Smoking a safe activity because a paltry few of people who smoke don't get cancer? No, we go with the overwhelming trend.

Explain to me how Islam is any different; The overwhelming trend is toward the kind of behavior under discussion.

I believe that I'm being logical, and your analogy doesn't quite hold up, though I appreciate the illustrative attempt:

A. I'm not declaring Islam "safe." I'm saying that characterizing Islam as the root of all evil is counter-productive, hyper-aggressive and unfair. Why? Because ...

B. Correlation is not causality. Are large swaths of Muslims going crazy because Islam itself compels it in a way that's immune to interpretation? Yes, the text is there, as well as the self-reinforcing structure, but what about interpretation? Jews don't kill heretics in modern society, though the text is there as well, and they did at some point; what changed?

Are these unthinking violent reactions a symptom of other problems, alone or combined with strict interpretation of Islam?

Look at Turkey - educated, secular Democracy - an Islamic culture and society. Look at the correlation between political freedom in any given country and its level of violence and support for terrorism. (more freedom = less violence)

The root of this violence is not even close to as simple as "Islam is bad." Not even close. And the will to see it that way is an impulse to simply and clearly define a very complex set of factors, factors that our current foreign policy is trying its damndest to strategically address.

To expand your smoking analogy:

A statistically significant, higher number of 18-24 year-olds that smoke get STD's. Would you, based on that information, say that "smoking causes STD's?"

None of the major players or for that matter any of the minor players on the rightside of the blogsphere are calling muslim people bad. We are all calling Islam bad.

I believe the phrase that describes that is "distinction without a difference."

no offense Bill, but I don't quite get your point. Which is a pity for me, because I generally like what you say.

I agree that the cartoons are not very nice. Personally, I don't think it's right to insult someone else's religious beliefs. And the Muslim world would be well within it's rights to boycott the sponsors of the offending newspapers, even Denmark itself, hold peaceful protests, etc etc.

However, that isn't where it stops. They threaten the lives of people, and even countries that happen to house these papers. This isn't even the main religion of Denmark, how in the world can they expect a foreign people to have the same reverence for their beliefs?

It's because of this over-reaction that I think it's important that every paper in the Western world publishes these silly cartoons. Because it's about more than the cartoons. It's about whether or not we can say what we want without being afraid of getting killed.

Had the Muslims stopped at boycotts and protests, I would have respected them. Disagreed, yes, but I respect someone who stands up for what he believes. But to threaten murder for a cartoon? I'm sorry, but this is where you and I part company.

Please let me make it clear that I don't care what the circumstances in this situation are. It doesn't matter to me if we are helping Iraq, or if the protesters are the most wonderful people in the world.

Freedom of speech is the single most important attribute of Western Civilization. It is the one thing that raises us above a totalitarian state. If we give in to this intimidation now, we will give in again and again, until the only people who can speak freely are the ones with guns. And that isn't freedom.

Besides which, as a number of people make it clear, this is just a show. The Saudi government has been promoting this crap now because they want to distract their own populace from the disastrous events at the Hajj. This is a very old political trick that failed governments will use. Find some BS to get the average moron worked up over, he'll rope in some friends, they'll rope in some otherwise intelligent people, you get a mob, they start screaming, and everyone forgets what a screw up you really are.

-ron

ron - Actually where you think you and I part company, we don't part company.

Here's where we part company:

However, that isn't where it stops. They threaten the lives of people, and even countries that happen to house these papers. This isn't even the main religion of Denmark, how in the world can they expect a foreign people to have the same reverence for their beliefs?

Define "they." Define "them."

And after you do that, take a stab at what's the best way to address the problem caused by "them."

I'd like to throw in my two cents on this.

1) Those who are claiming that Bill's point is invalidated by the ridiculous overreaction evidenced in the Muslim world, or by the perfectly legitimate idea that we can't allow ourselves to be cowed into submission by that crazed reaction, are not, it seems to me, understanding the original intent. I don't believe Bill's intent was to excuse the Muslim reaction in any way; quite the contrary, Bill was pretty explicit about condemning that reaction. He was simply pointing out that, while we can say, unequivocally, that threatening a cartoonist with death (along with the rest of the insanity going on right now) is wrong, it's both unnecessary and counterproductive to our current foreign policy goals to frame this event in the broad-brush way that many right-wing blogs have done.

2) To respond briefly to a commenter in the other thread, most Muslims don't have the opportunity to "write a letter to the editor"... which is a big reason why we're trying to bring democracy to the Middle East in the first place. For many, many Muslims, the only remotely safe outlet for their frustrations comes when they have an opportunity to publicly and vocally "defend" Islam in a way that's acceptable to their religious and political leaders.

3) I also think we should keep in mind that the old saying about how, between married couples, "a fight is never about what it's about." This reaction is not just about these particular cartoons; it's about what many Muslim leaders have convinced their people is an ongoing "attack on Islam" by the West...

4) ... which leads to my final point: all of the above being said, I'm not so sure I agree with what Bill and dorkafork have said about the "Islam is bad" versus "Muslims are bad" distinction.

Let me offer a little personal background by way of explanation: I used to be a fairly solidly anti-Bush lefty. I never really bought into full-on socialism, because I have too much economic knowledge to believe that nonsense, but a kind of naive pacifism and internationalism would have accurately described my philosophy for a brief period of time. A combination of factors, from reading a lot of blogs written by very reasonable and articulate "right-wingers" supporting the Bush Doctrine have brought me to the point where I guess I fit the standard "neo-con" paradigm of ex-liberal converted almost solely on the basis of foreign policy.

One of the final nails in the coffin of my pacifistic leanings was meeting and talking with my new roommate, who moved to the U.S. from Syria a few years back. We've gotten to be good friends, and talk about politics fairly frequently. He's no fan of Bush, but what struck me very early on in our discussions was the way he characterized the influence of Islam on Syrian and, more generally, Middle Eastern society. To be perfectly blunt, he sounded exactly like Donald Rumsfeld in one of his more coherent moments.

He described Islam as a "disaster", a "cancer", all the words you would expect to hear from the most ardent Iraq War advocate. I was, frankly, shocked. I had only ever heard American Bush supporters talk like that. And this wasn't some sort of soapbox speech; it was more of a visceral reaction as soon as I brought up the topic. He said that, in mainstream Muslim society, while most people would probably never go so far as to try to become "martyrs", the possibility was always there, sort of like a cultural background hum in the consciousness of otherwise perfectly reasonable people. It was just waiting for the appropriate trigger.

The point of all this is to say that, based largely on my roommate's firsthand experience and the newly-credible (for me at least) testimony of various neo-con intellectuals, I'm not so sure anymore that it's either unfair or inaccurate to say that "Islam is bad", nor is it necessarily contradictory to then say that "not all Muslims are bad". Maybe the best way to explain this is to go back to the example of socialism: it is a deeply flawed, morally bankrupt ideology that is simply unworkable in the real world with real human beings. But does that mean all socialists are bad people? I don't believe so. In fact, I know some who aren't; they simply lack some key understanding, or are too blinded by some negative experiences of capitalism, to recognize the failings of socialism. So we can say that "socialism is bad" without saying that "all socialists are bad".

The problem with these cartoons, in my view, is that by caricaturing Mohammed himself, they cross the line from saying "Islam is bad" to the far more questionable practice of knife-twisting provocation in the full knowledge of holding the "free speech" trump card. Much like the "artist" who, a few years ago, displayed the image in a NYC museum of Jesus covered in feces, and then claimed to simply be trying to "start a dialogue" about the negative side of Christianity, or some such self-serving puffery. You cannot publicly insult and demean a person's sacred beliefs and then expect a reasoned response.

In any case, I've probably gone on far too long, so I'll just close by saying I hope it's clear I'm neither defending the entirely disproportionate Muslim reaction, nor the (as Bill puts it) right-wing bloggers' "triumphalism". Other than that, take my comments for what they are, and nothing more: just one view of the situation, and not intended to be the final word.

I take your point, but various religions have promoted bad policies a la socialism, or its less benign cousin, Communism/Marxism. An argument against Islam as an inherently poisonous ideology could be expanded to argue against many (most) religions at various points in history, as they all demand fealty, are not based in rationality and have ultra-violent aspects. What happens? They change through a prism of culture.

A caveat: I do agree that Christianity is remarkable for the relative kindness of it's teachings - it's pretty difficult to find ultraviolent passages in the New Testament - though there are passages about things repellant to modern society like slavery and such - but overall, it's not an unsound argument to state that Christianity is a fundamentally more peaceful belief system than Islam, based on comparison of strict adherence to either "rulebook."

But even Christianity has been interpreted as an ultraviolent, intolerant, harsh belief system through the prism of various historical governments and cultures - so to give all credit or all blame to a specific religious structure as an immutable force for positivity or negativity is just incorrect, in my strong opinion.

And this doesn't address - as your point does - what the rational course of action is if one deems Islam itself immutably "BAD." Does one destroy it? Convert or kill a billion people? There are no practical applications for this judgment.

And expanding your argument about Islam = socialism, I'll note this:

socialism still exists, relatively successfully and peacefully, in muted, watered-down forms, in many countries around the world.

Why? Because the concept has adapted to realities.

them - n. Any nutball that threatens to kill another human being on the basis of a cartoon.

see also

"those folks" ie. people who think that "them" are doing the right thing but are too gutless / lazy to join in as well.

if it makes you feel any better, I think that Islam in it's present form, as radical as it seems to be, is a lot milder compared to pre-modern day Christianity.

On the other hand, please keep in mind that none of this controversy would have existed if a group of Imams from Denmark didn't choose to make an issue of it and a group of spoiled inbred Saudi oil princes didn't choose to take advantage of a ready made distraction. If the average Muslim does not want a holy war, as you imply, and as I sincerely hope you are correct, then they have to put their foot down and make that clear. Otherwise, the fault is NOT us, but their leaders.

You may argue that these Imams do not speak for the majority of Denmarks' Muslims. I hope to heaven that is the truth. But this can be proven once we see ONE - ONE demonstration saying "no we are not with those lunatics. Our religion is a lot tougher than a stupid cartoon, and we intend to continue buying Denmark cheese."

Until you can show me that Bill, then it tells me that something is truly rotten in the State of Denmark, and it ain't the Danes or their cheese.

(Mea Culpa. I couldn't resist :D )

Maybe the Muslims of Denmark will do what I hope.

-ron

Bill;

Yes, you did get the argument wrong... and to some degree, so did I... but for different reasons.

Check out Charles Moore in the DAily Telegraph, today.

“It is assumed that Muslims have a common, almost always bristling, view about their faith, which must be respected. Of course it is right that people's deeply held beliefs should be treated courteously, but it is a great mistake - made out of ignorance - to assume that those who shout the loudest are the most representative. This was the error in the case in Luton, where a schoolgirl's desire to wear the jilbab was upheld in the erroneous belief that this is what Islam demands. In fact, the girl was backed by an extremist group, and most of the other Muslims at the school showed no inclination to dress in full-length gowns like her. It's as if the Muslim world decided that the views of the Rev Ian Paisley represented the whole of authentic Christianity. There is no reason to doubt that Muslims worry very much about depictions of Mohammed. Like many, chiefly Protestant, Christians, they fear idolatry. But, as I write, I have beside me a learned book about Islamic art and architecture which shows numerous Muslim paintings from Turkey, Persia, Arabia and so on. These depict the Prophet preaching, having visions, being fed by his wet nurse, going on his Night-Journey to heaven, etc. The truth is that in Islam, as in Christianity, not everyone agrees about what is permissible. “

Just so. As if to back the idea, Check out this page... particularly scroll down and have a glimpse at all the examples presented.

For all of the noise we've been hearing about the image of Mohammed being forbidden, it would appear that such images are nothing new, even to Islam. Yet, we've never seen the fuss over them before. Could it be, do you suppose that they're just looking for excuse to be offended?

The bottom line here, is posting such pictures is NOT insulting all Muslims, or even most. Just a select few... and oddly enough, those select few are also those bombing us.

Because the concept has adapted to realities.

Agreed, as I agree with the overall sentiment of the rest of your comment. Actually, though - and I think this is an important distinction - to any degree which socialism has been successful, I would characterize the changes necessary as more "watering down" than "adaptation". For social democracies to succeed, they have to abandon a number of fairly fundamental socialist principles; this in effect makes the final product no longer socialism, but a sort of self-consciously egalitarian capitalism, such as we see in much of Europe.

I would argue that the same transformation has to happen within Islam before it can be a successful modern religion: it must, de facto, abandon some fundamental principles in order to coexist peacefully with the West. The first of these is the near-complete intertwining of the the religious with the political. Until this happens, I believe a very strong argument can be made that Islam itself is the problem, and that Arabic culture only exacerbates its flaws. I'm not so sure I'm the one to make that argument, but my real point wasn't to do so; it was just to say that I don't think it's either contradictory or a "distinction without a difference" to say that "Islam is bad" but not "all Muslims are bad".

I realize it's likely that some, maybe many, right-wing commentators use this defense because it's politically correct, but that doesn't make it an invalid position. Other than that, I think you and I see pretty much eye to eye on this: the most important thing is that we neither give in to those who wish to use our own compassion against us, nor to lose some of that compassion in favor of satisfying but ultimately self-defeating (at least for those who believe in the democracy project) generalized derision.

i agree with your post Bill and also your fine answers to those leaving comments.

Bithead:

For all of the noise we've been hearing about the image of Mohammed being forbidden, it would appear that such images are nothing new, even to Islam. Yet, we've never seen the fuss over them before. Could it be, do you suppose that they're just looking for excuse to be offended?

I think that's a very rational conclusion.

I'm not sure how the new piece of information that you offer in the rest of the comment indicates that I got the argument wrong, as my argument is about right-wing pundits categorizing Islam as universally "bad," and pressing any narrative or event that supports it (cartoons, whatever). My argument does NOT advocate tip-toeing around Muslim sensibilities as the Western media ludicrously does, though I do approvingly link Hewitt's analagous argument about giving radicals excuses by fanning the flames - mostly for his entiments on our reaction.

For the record, if this is not clearly established: I do not advocate that the cartoons should not have been published. That's a necessary option and regular event in a free society. My argument focuses on OUR Western, specifically right-wing, reactions to the events that condemn an entire religion.

Also, btw, regarding your initial conclusion that I cite as being very rational: you've come to the same conclusion espoused by Sistani in his public statements on the matter (I quoted them in a comment at the top of this thread).

Mary Janelle -

Thanks.

If the "vast majority" of the faith's adherants were violent and dangerous, we would have one hell of a bigger war on our hands.

The majority of muslims now live in democratic nations, and the majority are peaceful and non-violent. Of the many democratic nations with significant minorities, pluralities, or even majorities of muslims, most have grown freer and less violent over time, not vice-versa. That's a documented fact. But you can't expect the foaming islamophobes to accept that--after all, they're immune to fact and logic. Prejudice and bigotry are the name of the game.

Dean;

The problem with that statement of course is that there are varying degrees of support. I suspect, and suppose, that there are many within the world of Islam that are quite willing to let the Osama bin Ladens of the world do their dirty work for them. This supposition would seem to be backed by the idea that there are been very few people who have actually been raising their voices against binLaden and his minions. You see, I'd have a great deal less trouble believing that Islam is a religion of peace if I actually saw some evidence of resistance to the radicalism of Islam. So far, I've seen very little.

Bill;

if what Dean saying is true, and if what I have said with regards to some of the Islamic people simply looking for an excuse to get angry is also true, then it seems reasonable to conclude that your point about posting those drawings insulting all of Islam is far from true.

At that juncture then, all I can do is repeat:
The bottom line here, is posting such pictures is NOT insulting all Muslims, or even most. Just a select few... and oddly enough, those select few are also those bombing us.

....and, to suggest that the question then becomes how to deal with the situation. Clearly members of the European Union are not nearly ready to be dealing with this kind of radicalism, this kind of unqualified hatred. , as I suggested before respect engenders respect, then it seems reasonable to assume that hatred engenders hatred. The reaction of Joe Lunchpail, therefore, should be of no surprise to anybody who's been watching the situation.

Bithead: No, the images ARE offensive to all muslims. And not because they make fun of the prophet per se, but because ALL images of the prophet are considered sacreligious. That they make fun of him (some mildly, some moreso) just makes it a bit worse.

What's at question is whether people approve of violence in response to such things. That's what's key.

And, your not seeing voices raised in opposition to Bin Laden in the islamic world is not the islamic world's problem, it's yours. There have been countless such denunciations, and they are not hard to find AT ALL. Indeed, there are several search enginges available at your fingertips. Suggested search terms: "muslims denounce bin laden" and "muslims denounce al qaeda" and "muslims denounce terrorism."

Now I realize that's a WHOOOLE lot of VERRRY HAARRRD WORK. But maybe one day you can take 30 seconds out of your schedule to run those through any decent search engine.

Of course, the mainstream media doesn't emphasize any of this much. Gee, maybe we should ask ourselves whether the MSM should be trusted.... whaddya think? Should we have a poll?

Well, Dean, googling or clustyfying or whatever you search with for "muslims denounce bin laden" will pick up many of the same search results that "muslims denounce bin laden for killing muslims, not infidel jooooos" would. Myself, I doubt that more than a few of the Danish cartoons could be regarded in the same light that Orthodox icons and the like are, which would seem to be the purpose of the Koranic passage quoted against them. Maybe it's too moderate a translation?

I have to say it's great to see this discussion on the right blogosphere. I've seen a great deal of extremist rhetoric re: Islam coming from the right these past few years ... it'd sure be nice if you guys were turning a corner on that particular dead end.

Yes, I'm a lefty, and the above may sound quite arrogant to some. But I'm not trying to tar Bill or Dean or any other thoughtful commenter here with the extremist brush ... just letting you guys know how it's looked to us on our side of the fence these past years - in terms of how the right has "trended" on Islam.

Taking on LGF is a great thing. I wish more would do it.

Dean:

Of course, the mainstream media doesn't emphasize any of this much. Gee, maybe we should ask ourselves whether the MSM should be trusted.... whaddya think? Should we have a poll?

This is the one position on which the MSM can be trusted; they are unswerving apologists for the Muslim fanatics and so if any Muslims did condemn the attacks we would have heard allll about it. Oh, no wait. That's bullshit, sorry, I forgot that the biggest problem with journalism today is the sheer laziness of reporting such that all that is cared about is sensational headlines. In my opinion.

Bill, thanks for some very informative, entertaining and thoughtprovoking posts. It is sometimes too easy to fall into the trap of condemning a whole group of people for the actions of just a few; it happens in politics on both sides of the ailse with alarming regularity. I have found myself with thoughts of illwill to muslims in general following this whole debacle and it has been helpful to have arguments so clearly articulated by you such that I have been able to regain a measure of perspective.

I don't always agree with what you say in every post, but damn it, I respect you. Cheers.

Thanks.

Bithead: No, the images ARE offensive to all muslims. And not because they make fun of the prophet per se, but because ALL images of the prophet are considered sacreligious. That they make fun of him (some mildly, some moreso) just makes it a bit worse.

Dean; you clearly didn't spend any time looking at the link that provided of the several hundred examples of images of "the prophet".

and, the fact of the matter is, there has been no groundswell of anger against BinLaden and Company. indeed, there has been nothing but support. This is not simply a matter of mainstream media manipulation which I'd take is a matter of fact before the echo dies. This is a matter of their simply not being anything to report. Now, whether this is a situation of BinLaden's opponents simply being too intimidated to speak, is left to the readers imagination.

Tell me; if the examples as you cited are so prevalent, how is it that we have yet to see any serious action from any Muslim nation against the man?

Bithead:

if what Dean saying is true, and if what I have said with regards to some of the Islamic people simply looking for an excuse to get angry is also true, then it seems reasonable to conclude that your point about posting those drawings insulting all of Islam is far from true.

By "my point about posting those drawings insulting all of Islam," I suppose you mean this line in my original post:

But at the same time, gleefully celebrating cartoons that incite and condemn an entire religion like they're merely glorious banners of free speech is hypocritical.

Forgive me if my words are loose - I honestly DID NOT mean this sentence as a strict interpretation of the idea that merely creating images of Mohommed is forbidden by Islamic law, as Dean is mentioning. To some extent, I don't particularly care about Western free expression walking on eggshells around that rulebook.

I meant it in a more general sense. For example: if an artist drew a picture of Jesus as a terrorist, or a drug dealer, a pimp, a murderer, etc., that would be something I would consider an attempt to insult all Christians.

The cartoons themselves only relate to my point about right-wingers in the sense that right-wing bloggers have chosen to endorse them, when they would typically find a vulgar attack on another's religion - or other vulgar attacks - to be rather low culture. You didn't see many right-wingers waving copies of Hustler Magazine around when Larry Flynt went to the Supreme Court in the name of free speech, for example.

And what really gets me is when the argument expands to the condemnations of Islam itself, which, as I've mentioned, I believe to be unnecessarily hostile and counterproductive to all we're trying to accomplish through our current foreign policy. I have never believed or stated that the cartoons never should have existed; that the artists should "know better," as such sentiments are antithetical to and totally unrealistic in a free society (Hewitt somewhat intimated that in my excerpt of his post, but not quite).

But that doesn't mean we have to go overboard by celebrating the sentiment in the art and, MUCH more importantly, declaring this a religious war against Islam itself. Hope this clarifies.

Bill;

but isn't that the point? The loud and violent protests that we're seeing across Europe right now and particularly in Denmark, are supposed to be taken as these people speak for all Islam. They are making the claim that all Islam is insulted. Is not the idea that all Islam has declared war on us implicit in that statement then?

We can argue , I think, all day long, as regards whether are not that implicit statement is true. But certainly, if we're to take the question in the framework it's presented to us, that's the mode we have to respond in.

I more than grant that Binladen, crafty SOB that he is, may very well be misrepresenting that point so is together more followers to and self in his war. Which, of itself, suggests that the radicals have far less in the way of support than they are claiming. But, if in fact that is a miscasting of the situation ...where are the objectors to that miscasting from within Islam? Where is the movement to reclaim their religion from such people? It still comes down to not seeing any major movement against the radical version of Islam. Until that question is answered the rest of all of this is immaterial.

ionolsen22 I like your site

ionolsen24 Hello Jane, great site!

zoofilia sample videos hardcore zoo sex

zoofilia sample videos hardcore zoo sex

bbw hot mature bbw videos

bbw hot mature bbw videos

fdyrdcflb

erehbvdneh

erehbvdneh

ionolsen40 I just don not have anything to say right now.

Jonathan Ross is dubbed "risque" by Ofcom but not in breach of rules over an interview with David Cameron...

Jonathan Ross is dubbed "risque" by Ofcom but not in breach of rules over an interview with David Cameron...

Colombia's vice president is "baffled" by Kate Moss's success following cocaine allegations...

Veteran game show host Bob Barker is stepping down from hosting The Price is Right after 35 years...

Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery...

Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery...

Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81...

Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81...

Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81...

Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81...

Pioneering screenwriter Nigel Kneale, best known for the Quatermass TV serials and films, dies aged 84...

London-born rapper Sway is to be honoured at the BET Hip-Hop awards in the US...

London-born rapper Sway is to be honoured at the BET Hip-Hop awards in the US...

Microsoft and Peter Jackson postpone the making of a film based on the Halo video game after backers pull out...

The judge who put coded messages in his Da Vinci Code plagiarism trial ruling has written another...

viagra .

The judge who put coded messages in his Da Vinci Code plagiarism trial ruling has written another...

The judge who put coded messages in his Da Vinci Code plagiarism trial ruling has written another...

The Red Hot Chili Peppers are leading the way at this years MTV Europe music awards with four nominations...