- Bligh unveils 20-year infrastructure plan
- Torres Strait pleads for climate change action
- Overcrowding in parliamentary precinct worsens, Opposition says
- Minister apologises for 'boisterous' comment
- Junee senator questions Australian Quarantine rules
- Carbon price 'disastrous' for mining companies
- Local MP urges PM's carbon tax tour to visit Riverina
Those Cartoons
I normally like to try to approach issues from an angle that has not been well developed in the mainstream media, but with the violent reaction in parts of the middle east in response to the Danish cartoons of the Muslim Prophet, the issues have already been canvassed from every conceivable angle. We have a multitide of newspapers publishing the images, or not, with no difference among the regions - even in the middle east some newspapers have published them and seen their editors arrested. Some publish them claiming it is necessary to do so to support free speech, and others refusing to because it is necessary to respect other cultures.
If you have not yet seen the image, Tim Blair has published them.
My own take on the publication is that publishing for the sole purpose of annoyance is irresponsible, however once the reaction turned to violence the situation changed. That entailed an attempt, by the use of force, to curtail free speech - that is something that gives far more weight to those who publish them in order to protect free speech, because it is important to make it perfectly clear that violent responses will fail.
While publishing material for the sole purpose of offending is irresponsible, resorting to violence when faced with the opinion of another - even one you find offensive - is an act of savagery that demonstrates the perpetrator of the violence to be a primitive person who is not suited to life in a civilised world. When the offence is taken because it challenges religious beliefs, it demonstrates that that person is so weak in their beliefs that they fear their beliefs will falter in the face of the mere words of another - it demonstrates that the person lacks the faith that they might have thought they had.
To paraphrase: a civilised person will not react with violence to the expression by another of their opinion, even if offended by that opinion; and a person who has a genuine religious faith will be too secure in their beliefs to even take significant offence at the opinion of another that challenges their belief. A person who reacts violently to material such as the Danish cartoons is neither civilised nor a person secure in their faith.
One writer has taken this of evidence that the Middle East is not ready for democracy as it does not have the right pre-conditions. As evidence he looks at the outcome of the elections in Iraq and Palestine, which have produced control for religious extremists. Perhaps we should avoid throwing around such accusations when the US and Australia manage to elect parties to government that are not subject to the whims of the religious right.
It is not Muslims reacting violently, but idiots who are Muslims
The following comes from a comment made on geek site Slashdot by "Tempestdata":
Well .. I dont think muslims have a problem with all cartoons. Just cartoons that make fun of religious figures they respect.
This is off topic.. but... I'm hoping some people will read this and help them 'understand' the behavious of those rioters.
I know you were just joking around, (or maybe the right word is 'think') but to me (a muslim) the cartoons of prophet mohammad were mildly amusing. Especially the one that said "STOP! we have run out of virgins!". But I see the reaction by other muslims to be more cultural than religious.
Its hard for a westerner to understand. But think of a religious figure such as a prophet as a father figure.
In the west, its okay to say things like "I hate my father." or "My father is a S#%^@#" ... In the east, this is just not culturally acceptable.
In the west, its okay to make fun of Jesus. Here is one I heard while living here in the west - "Q: Never ask yourself What would jesus do? Answer: Coz He'd Get crucified and DIE!" I am willing to bet that any practicing christian who reads this might be amused, but would more likely find it unfunny. Some would find it offensive. This is in a culture that is quite tolerant about making fun of people who are in a position of respect.
Now, if me.. a brown muslim guy, were to go the the American heartland and crack similar jokes at peter's expense. I would eventually run into a christian red neck would think I deserve a punch.
Think of those rioting muslims, as the lowest level of muslims. They are the brown trash. They are the economically poor, religiously fanatic, aggressive, cocky mob. They are being constantly told that the west is targetting muslims, and then they are seeing jokes made about a person they respect. What do they do? They riot. Bloody idiots.
The majority of muslims over the world, simply frowned at the prophet being made fun off. Very much as they would frown if you insulted or made fun of their parents. It is a cultural thing.
Some like me, realized that the west didn't mean to offend me, and we take it in our stride, giggle, smile and point out 'hey buddy.. that was a bit insensitive"
Another thing I want to point out.. that the word "Muslim" is about as descriptive as "Christian". There are as many kinds of muslim as there are kinds of christian. Baptist, Born Again, protestant, presbeterian, orthodox, catholic, etc. There are many differences between each of them.. Most of the terrorism, and a lot of the rioting is being caused by a particularly extremist sect that is deeply entrenched in Saudia Arabia, and was the backbone of the Taliban. Wahabism. It was founded by an Islamic scholar Abdul Wahab. I am not a wahabi. :)