If you insult our sky pixie, then we will call for sanctions

Ubiquitous · Post by **Ubiquitous** » 2006-01-30 10:14pm

Has anyone else been following the shit-storm created by the Danish newspaper depicting Allah as a terrorist? Many offended Muslims have demanded that the Danish government apologise for what has happened.

Of course, those people seem to be painfully unaware that in some countries, the government does not run the press...

Read it for yourself and taste the idiocy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 664408.stm

Denmark has advised citizens against travel to Saudi Arabia, amid growing anger across the Muslim world at Danish depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.

A newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet, one of which pictured a bomb hidden in his turban, apologised on Monday for offending Muslims.

Islam bans any depiction of the Prophet Muhammad or Allah.

The backlash has included a boycott of Danish goods, diplomatic sanctions, and Islamic militant threats.

...

Meanwhile pan-Arab organisations have begun efforts to reach a UN resolution, backed by possible sanctions, to protect religions from insults.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-01-30 10:52pm

Meanwhile pan-Arab organisations have begun efforts to reach a UN resolution, backed by possible sanctions, to protect religions from insults.

The ramifications of this would be far-reaching; creationists, for example, could cite UN precedent as an excuse to push creationism into the school system, I'd think. And I'm sure the resistance to using international law as judicial precedent would selectively melt in some circles.

Cosmic Average · Post by **Cosmic Average** » 2006-01-30 10:55pm

I think these are the cartoons in question.

Or, try this one.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2006-01-30 11:38pm

Ubiquitous is right. Since the danish goverment does not run the press by punishing all danes they are going too far. It is like what a American neo con would do by assosiating the entire muslim world with one extremist clerics viewpoints. This is the view point of one newspaper not everyone in Denmark. So it is wrong to sanction the entire country for this. Indirectly the sanction happy folks are also harming their muslim brothers in denmark by creating bad PR for them and damaging the economy they are part of. The smarter action would have been to tackle words with words by writting protest letters to the newspaper explaining the muslim point of view and not create a mess by calling for sanctions against Denmark.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2006-01-31 12:38am

While pan-Arab organisations have begun efforts to reach a UN resolution, backed by possible sanctions, to protect religions from insults.

What possible reason could they justify such a protection for religion? Quite frankly, I don't even understand how people can still try to justify the concept of FREEDOM of religion as an enshrined part of a constitution or charter.

How can a set of beliefs that are in almost in their entirety, completely unsupportable as reality, have an argument for special status? There are many things that are not ILLEGAL to do, and we don't have specific things written up like "Everyone should have the right to freedom of food choice", or "Everyone should have the right to play a musical instrument". Do you seen what I mean? What is the reason this has remained a sacred cow? Fuck, in an indirect way I guess I answered my own question.

In any case, how can we deal with this specific matter when the law demands a certain type of "respect" for something they cannot, and incidentally, do not HAVE to justify? Talk about a catch-22.

You know, I swear that silence is more powerful than words sometimes. Look at the interesting parallel. Religion has been arguably more successful by persecuting and silencing other opposing viewpoints and beliefs than simply distributing "the word". Silence detractors, silence the concept of homosexuality and don't let them push it down people's throats as an issue (love that hyposcrisy

), silence the medical community about the importance of condoms and AIDS prevention in major countries, silence this, silence that.

After all this unbelievably conspicuous smear campaign against each and everything they disdain and judge as "sinful", they have the NERVE to suggest they should be able to silence criticism against their own faith?

Un-fucking believable when you really think about it. Talk about fascism at its finest! Disgusting hypocrites.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2006-01-31 01:19am

Quite frankly, I don't even understand how people can still try to justify the concept of FREEDOM of religion as an enshrined part of a constitution or charter.

Freedom of religion (or conscience, if you prefer that term) serves to preserve the individual's right to believe whatever they want agains the power of the State to establish One True Religion or the majority to coerce others into becoming Protestants (or Catholics, or whatever).

IIRC, the US first amendment's religion provision was a reaction against the Church of England being entertwined with the King and Government at that time, and the authors of the BoR didn't want to see that happen here.

As much as I dislike some things the RCC does, I'll defend their right to exist and the rights of Catholics to practice their religion free of outside interference.
The same goes for the rights of Muslims, Hindus, or almost any other religion.
But like with all rights, there are limits on the freedom of religion.
For example, religious beliefs or not, human sacrifice is illegal. Period.
A religious argument wouldn't even be considered a mitigating factor at trial.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2006-01-31 01:26am

Forgot to add:

But what's going on in Denmark isn't so much as a freedom of religion issue as it is a simple censorship attempt by outside governments who wouldn't understand the concept of Liberty if she shoved her torch up their collective asses.

It's kinda like the outrage over Mapplethorpe's Piss Christ 'artwork'.
Sure it was tasteless, offensive, crass, and disrespectful and the cynical part of me thinks it was done to sucker money out of the sophisticated art crowd.

But it wasn't illegal and shouldn't ever be so.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2006-01-31 01:37am

Freedom of religion (or conscience, if you prefer that term) serves to preserve the individual's right to believe whatever they want agains the power of the State to establish One True Religion or the majority to coerce others into becoming Protestants (or Catholics, or whatever).

Wouldn't it be easier to make a law saying there can BE no forcing of religion on people because it's an irrational belief in the first place?

IIRC, the US first amendment's religion provision was a reaction against the Church of England being entertwined with the King and Government at that time, and the authors of the BoR didn't want to see that happen here.

Oh I understand the usefulness in the past, but at this stage of the game where science has explained the basics of nearly every potential mystery that was chalked up to "divine"?

As much as I dislike some things the RCC does, I'll defend their right to exist and the rights of Catholics to practice their religion free of outside interference.

*sigh*. I understand and grudgingly accept this in theory, but lately I'm starting to wonder if it's really the right thing to do. This also means that they are given a free hand to raise their kids believing delusional beliefs, instilling horrible guilt in them over every natural sex impulse they feel and especially ACT on such as masturbation. When you look at the people who have been so fucked up over their religious upbringing, I truly wonder (for example) if it should be illegal to indoctrinate children into such cultish organizations. Realistically I can imagine the backlash if this was REALLY challenged in this day and age as there are still huge numbers of fundamentalist, but I have to wonder if that would be actually MORAL in the long run ironically enough. Why should a parent not be allowed to physically abuse a child and yet given the free hand to mentally abuse them by instilling long term psychological neurosis? Even worse when the children are REALLY outside the box like homosexuals.

The same goes for the rights of Muslims, Hindus, or almost any other religion.
But like with all rights, there are limits on the freedom of religion.
For example, religious beliefs or not, human sacrifice is illegal. Period.
A religious argument wouldn't even be considered a mitigating factor at trial.

This is why I think the "right" to practice religion is unnecessary and very contentious as they keep trumpeting this as good enough reason to block what they consider sinful activities and attitudes. Since it is severely limited to what is ok or not by a different standard of societies laws, it isn't REALLY a full freedom anyway. It's conditional.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2006-01-31 02:03am

Wouldn't it be easier to make a law saying there can BE no forcing of religion on people because it's an irrational belief in the first place?

Then you're putting the State in the position of enforcing a 'freedom from religion', and that is not consistent with almost any human rights document out there, from the US Constitution to the UN Declaration to your own Charter.

BTW, I just noticed this line at the beginning of the Charter:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

And that was written in 1982.

Oh I understand the usefulness in the past, but at this stage of the game where science has explained the basics of nearly every potential mystery that was chalked up to "divine"?

You still have literally billions who want to practice their religion, and merely looking at it from a practical standpoint, Christianity and Islam seem to spread all the more when the adherents thereof think they're being persecuted.

This is why I think the "right" to practice religion is unnecessary and very contentious as they keep trumpeting this as good enough reason to block what they consider sinful activities and attitudes. Since it is severely limited to what is ok or not by a different standard of societies laws, it isn't REALLY a full freedom anyway. It's conditional.

Sure religious freedom leads to contention and there are limits on it.
However there are no 'unlimited' rights, as there are limits on every right.
From free speech to abortion to guns (which is an explictly protected right in the US BoR) to property rights and religion, they all have limits.
Now we as a society constantly are defining just where those limits are, but all rights are limited to a degree.

The best 'defense' as it were against the attitudes you mention is simply wider spread tolerance in the larger society and the kids of some of these fundie bigots will pick it up slowly with exposure.

It's not religious, but as an example my Dad is one of the biggest racists and homophobes you'd ever meet, while me and my sisters aren't.
I've often said I need to bring home a black chick or tell him I'm gay just for the entertainment value.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2006-01-31 04:59am

Look at this:
http://www.angryflower.com/jesusc.gif

How much outrage did this generate? Ever? And I am willing to bet Bob the angry flower has alot of people reading it.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2006-01-31 05:13am

So muslim fundamentalist assholes reacts the same way as any other fundamentalist assholes, no supprise there.

When where the last time some fuddie xian boycotted this or that?

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2006-01-31 07:13am

The paper have surrendered, unfortunately, and issued an appology.

Zadius · Post by **Zadius** » 2006-01-31 07:52am

CJvR wrote:The paper have surrendered, unfortunately, and issued an appology.

The apologized but didn't admit to any wrongdoing. So the fundie morons aren't satisfied.

Zadius · Post by **Zadius** » 2006-01-31 07:53am

That should read: They apologized...

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2006-01-31 08:08am

This is from denmark as well:

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-01-31 08:28am

Foolish danes, Mohammed wasn't a terrorist that used bombs, he used swords, and furthermore, fucked an 8 year old girl. I don't know who the danes are kidding with these "unpleasant" representations. He sounds like such a nice guy.

Oh, and you've got to laugh at the arabs asking for immunity from insults, that's priceless, really.

Edward Yee · Post by **Edward Yee** » 2006-01-31 08:42am

Justforfun000 wrote:Wouldn't it be easier to make a law saying there can BE no forcing of religion on people because it's an irrational belief in the first place?

After which the new partisan divides would be over what gets defined as "an irrational belief in the first place".

An officially atheist state is not inherently good in and of itself, simply by being such. (There's "better than," and then there's "good," period.)

Speaking of what Rye said, the next to last paragraph of a Brussels Journal post:

In an article in the Amsterdam newspaper De Volkskrant today Dutch cartoonists admit that they do not depict Muhammad out of fear for violent retaliations. “It is a kind of self-censorship,” Stefan verwey admits. “I have large windows and would rather keep them intact,” says Peter de Wit, while Joep Bertrams concedes. “It causes a lot of problems. Why throw oil on the fire?”

Other cartoonists, however, who have asked to remain anonimous, think that Western artist should not allow themselves to be intimidated and propose an international “Draw Muhammad Week.” Next month a book will be out in the Netherlands which contains a cartoon by Gregorius Nekschot [a pseudonym] of the prophet “in a compromising pose” with his child-wife Aisha.

Can anyone verify?

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-01-31 09:45am

Verify the book or Aisha? Aisha was 9, sorry, not 8, when mohammed porked her. There's even a hadith where she mentions playing with dolls.

Sahih Bukhari 8:151, Narrated 'Aisha: "I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet , and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

and:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-01-31 09:56am

Glocksman wrote:
Wouldn't it be easier to make a law saying there can BE no forcing of religion on people because it's an irrational belief in the first place?
Then you're putting the State in the position of enforcing a 'freedom from religion', and that is not consistent with almost any human rights document out there, from the US Constitution to the UN Declaration to your own Charter.

Why not? Freedom from religion is the basis of the establishment clause in the First Amendment. The state is merely enforces the right of people to believe whatever they want; in fact, freedom of religion implies freedom from religion, because if an individual does not possess the right to worship not at all, then he is not free to choose a religion.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2006-01-31 10:05am

Glocksman said:

Then you're putting the State in the position of enforcing a 'freedom from religion', and that is not consistent with almost any human rights document out there, from the US Constitution to the UN Declaration to your own Charter.

I don't know if I agree with that. It isn't something that would in any way keep you FROM religion. It is something very personal and not really belonging in public for any real reason except in a church where people can worship together. What specific reason can anyone give that it has any other public purpose? What is the purpose? What human right is going to be trampled on if it isn't written in the laws that they have "freedom" of it? Like I gave as examples, why isn't it necessary to have a law giving me the "freedom" of being a vegetarian? I just don't see the logic behind it.

BTW, I just noticed this line at the beginning of the Charter:
Quote:
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

And that was written in 1982.

Yes, ironically enough Canada literally recognizes the "role" of God as part of the founding and yet we promote the separation of Church and State far better than the US. It comes down to lesser degrees of fundamentalism thankfully.

You still have literally billions who want to practice their religion, and merely looking at it from a practical standpoint, Christianity and Islam seem to spread all the more when the adherents thereof think they're being persecuted.

What is it PRECISELY that they need to "practice"? What actions are necessary to be identified and protected as purely religious? If it is sexual morality, that's easy. They can individually choose to not masturbate, have no pre-marital sex and remain monogamous in an approved marriage. But that isn't really the issue is it. They want to force everyone ELSE to follow suit.

And as to being persecuted, they never shut up about it. They've all been "persecuted" for thousands of years and yet for the great majority of them up until now there is very little direct harm done to these people through secular governments and organization. Their greatest threat are other religions that are contrary to theirs. On top of this, they have persecuted homosexuals, scientists and any type of hedonism they can find so unmercifully and barbarically that the hypocrisy should deserve an Academy Award.

Their bullshit brings to mind a story of my Great Grandmother who lived to 103. I was told she was never well a day in her life but she buried 5 doctors.

Sure religious freedom leads to contention and there are limits on it.
However there are no 'unlimited' rights, as there are limits on every right.
From free speech to abortion to guns (which is an explictly protected right in the US BoR) to property rights and religion, they all have limits.
Now we as a society constantly are defining just where those limits are, but all rights are limited to a degree.

Yes I understand this which is why it also supports my point. The so called need for an enshrined protection regarding religion is non existent in my opinion.

The best 'defense' as it were against the attitudes you mention is simply wider spread tolerance in the larger society and the kids of some of these fundie bigots will pick it up slowly with exposure.

Absolutely. Providing the people screaming that their constitutional right to force religion..excuse me, practice their FREEDOM of religion towards others behaviour do not silence the opposition. It is their MO after all.

It's not religious, but as an example my Dad is one of the biggest racists and homophobes you'd ever meet, while me and my sisters aren't.
I've often said I need to bring home a black chick or tell him I'm gay just for the entertainment value.

LOL! Bring back a black guy and say you're dating him. If you're going to have fun, go all the way.

EDWARD YEE SAID:

Justforfun000 wrote:
Wouldn't it be easier to make a law saying there can BE no forcing of religion on people because it's an irrational belief in the first place?
After which the new partisan divides would be over what gets defined as "an irrational belief in the first place". An officially atheist state is not inherently good in and of itself, simply by being such. (There's "better than," and then there's "good," period.)

Well irrational might not be the best term to use, but it can't be THAT hard to come up with "anything that can't be substantiated as objectifiable truth"? There has to be a simple way to separate beliefs from reality.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2006-01-31 10:45am

Glocksman wrote:And that was written in 1982.

Err. Yes. Britain, and usually by extension, the commonwelth, have an Established Religion - The Church of England/Scotland, here. Didn't you know this?

Edward Yee · Post by **Edward Yee** » 2006-01-31 11:09am

Justforfun000 wrote:EDWARD YEE SAID:

Justforfun000 wrote:
Wouldn't it be easier to make a law saying there can BE no forcing of religion on people because it's an irrational belief in the first place?
After which the new partisan divides would be over what gets defined as "an irrational belief in the first place". An officially atheist state is not inherently good in and of itself, simply by being such. (There's "better than," and then there's "good," period.)
Well irrational might not be the best term to use, but it can't be THAT hard to come up with "anything that can't be substantiated as objectifiable truth"? There has to be a simple way to separate beliefs from reality.

The problem is, then they'll just fight over that too.

(Possibly-related thought -- could you really prove wrong those who in ancient times made the best possible conclusions that they could from observing physical matter with the unaided eye, without having the knowledge and the technology to prove otherwise? Example, having technology able to magnify to view something on a scale impossible without this aid.)

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2006-01-31 11:31am

The problem is, then they'll just fight over that too.

(Possibly-related thought -- could you really prove wrong those who in ancient times made the best possible conclusions that they could from observing physical matter with the unaided eye, without having the knowledge and the technology to prove otherwise? Example, having technology able to magnify to view something on a scale impossible without this aid.)

Well of course they'll fight. I doubt any action can ever be taken without some people fighting. It's inevitable. BUT, how many would fight if it's undeniably sensible?

Let me put it this way...it would be very difficult for someone to seriously argue that a video recording of the Giza Pyramid being explored in and out by a television crew would be on an equal footing with a 1000 year old passage describing a completely different interior of it and giving dimensions that do not match even remotely by current measurements.

One is objectifiably compelling and the other just unsubstantiated hearsay.

Something stressing this type of evidential litmus test by comparison shouldn't be that hard to get majority support.

Metatwaddle · Post by **Metatwaddle** » 2006-01-31 11:41am

Faram wrote:So muslim fundamentalist assholes reacts the same way as any other fundamentalist assholes, no supprise there.

When where the last time some fuddie xian boycotted this or that?

Maybe you meant that as a rhetorical question, but the last time that comes to mind was during the holiday season when they boycotted Wal-Mart, Macy's, Target, etc. for having Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.

dr. what · Post by **dr. what** » 2006-01-31 11:58am

[link]

Here's a typical editorial from an Arabic newspaper (in this case, the Kuwait Times) which may be relevant to the discussion.

'Selective' freedom of speech
----------------
By Dr Sami Alrabaa

Daoud Al-Basri discusses in Al-Siyassa (Jan 28 ) the caricature in a Danish newspaper about the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and the Norwegian-Arab relationships. Al-Basri argues that the caricature does not reflect the political and religious views of the majority of Danes and Norwegians. Most of these people respect religious symbols and sympathise with Arabs and their Palestinian cause. Not only the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) is caricatured in Scandinavian countries, but also Christ once in a while. Whenever this happens, Christians take to the street to demonstrate and both the public and the media keep enjoying freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in Denmark and Norway is something as sacred as any religious symbols. Unfortunately, both Muslims and Jews react in the same manner vis-a-vis freedom of speech. Whenever a Danish or Norwegian politician criticises Israel for atrocities against Palestinians, for instance, the Jews react disproportionately and accuse critics of Israel of being anti-Semitic.

My comment : Arabs are not used to freedom of speech. They understand by freedom of speech their own only. Arabs demand freedom of speech as long as it is convenient to them. By the same token, people they disagree with, or enemies must be muzzled. For Arabs, freedom of speech is not universal and does not apply to everybody and everywhere. They go selective about it. Arabs also tend to generalise more than any other people. Now all the Danes "are" bad, the Norwegians "are" also bad.

Epitome of hypocrisy

Hamad Al-Majed praises in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (Jan 28 ) the Palestinian elections. Al-Majed writes, "The Palestinians should be proud of themselves. We are all proud of them. They have proved to the world that all nations and all people are apt to successfully conduct democratic elections, fair and clean. The West, including America has reacted undemocratically towards the election in Palestine. The landslide victory of Hamas was received with contempt.

My comment : When it comes to dealing with Arab and Muslim affairs, the West seems to be messy and confused. On the one hand, the West is demanding more and more democracy in Arab and Muslim countries. When, on the other hand, an anti-West party or organisation wins the election, like Hamas, the West threatens that it won't co-operate with a government led by that party. This is the epitome of hypocrisy. In addition, American and European officials rarely meet with members of the opposition in Arab and Muslim countries. However, they do meet with the opposition in Russia and China, for example. As Angela Merkel lately visited Moscow, she insisted on meeting with members of the opposition. President George W. Bush received in the White House Saad Hariri, the son of the late Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri. Bush and other Western leaders have rarely met with the opposition in Arab or Muslim countries. The West establishes good relationships with the opposition overseas only when it is unhappy or antagonised by the regime in power. The West has never been interested in establishing any relationship with the opposition in the Arab Muslim world. What for? The regimes in this world have optimally served the interests of the West. Hence the West does not need the opposition. This is a selfish, short-sighted policy. And the West should not wonder when more and more Arabs and Muslims join the anti-Western forces in the Arab-Muslim world.

Hamas election victory

Fouad Al-Hashem cites in his column in Al-Watan (Jan 29) some jokes which are making the round about the future Hamas government. "People who park in forbidden places will receive a penalty/fine of three fasting days. Unbearded people will receive seventy flogs. Taxi colours will be changed from yellow to green, the favourite colour of Hamas." Al-Hashem also notes that Kuwaiti Islamists got of their way to congratulate Hamas on its victory in the Palestinian elections. On the other hand, as Kuwait was invaded by Iraq in 1990, the same Hamas and other Islamist fundamentalist organisations supported Iraq and never sided with their fellow Muslims in Kuwait. "It remains to be seen how Hamas is going to swim in the ocean of politics. If Hamas stays radical, it will be isolated," Al-Hashem concludes.

My comment : Exactly, it remains to be seen how Hamas is going to perform. If Hamas continues its rejectionist policy towards Israel, it will be isolated and it would join the stubborn axis Iran-Syria-Hizbollah (in Lebanon). However, Hamas might change as many other radical parties and organisation did in the past. Fatah changed and revolutionary parties like the Greens in Germany also changed. Joschka Fischer, the Greens' spiritual leader and former foreign minister used, during the early day of the Greens, to throw the police with stones and molotov-cocktails. However, election after election, the Greens joined good society and have established themselves as a civil party like any other one. Hamas might develop the same way, or might disappear if it fails to deliver good peaceful policies.