That’s always trotted out in any discussion concerning curtailing free speech. 
But we’re not talking about theaters or fires, are we? We’re talking about the restriction of political rights…rights that in America at least, our ancestors fought and died for. Rights that were won, not given to us by a king 3 thousand miles away.
I don’t plan on giving up my rights because Abdul, Mohammed or Frank doesn’t like it. You can do as you wish.
That’s always trotted out in any discussion concerning curtailing free speech.
But we’re not talking about theaters or fires, are we? We’re talking about the restriction of political rights…rights that in America at least, our ancestors fought and died for. Rights that were won, not given to us by a king 3 thousand miles away.
I don’t plan on giving up my rights because Abdul, Mohammed or Frank doesn’t like it. You can do as you wish.[/quote]
Whatever you do, don’t let anybody take the right to remain silent from you. 
And the “fought and died for” line is trotted out just as often, isn’t it?
Aren’t there martyrs enough? There’s little reason to fear death, but plenty of reasons to live well. That’s my concern: doing right with our rights. Never considered giving up a thing.
It’s true and it never fails to wind-up Canadians. 
I agree…I wish the Bishop of Canterbury would issue a jihad so that we could have the opportunity to experience how it feels to act like nutters and go around blowing shit up.
Rarely in France.
[quote=“Durins Bane”][quote=“Dragonbones”]
Perhaps we could begin by learning more about the other side, and learning how to be more sensitive to their culture.
[/quote]
I agree…I wish the Bishop of Canterbury would issue a jihad so that we could have the opportunity to experience how it feels to act like nutters and go around blowing shit up.[/quote]
The bishop of Downing Street would undoubtedly frown on anyone else issuing jihads – or fatwas – but him.
Just what type of a compromise do you have in mind?
I ask because (a) I am not very willing to compromise my right to free political expression, and (b) I do not think the fundamentalist Islamofascists are particularly willing to compromise on this matter either.
What do you suggest?
We could agree to kill each other. No, wait, we’re already doing that.
I have been thinking about converting to Islam. I mean, listen to the sales pitch:
Jesus: “Well, if you blow shit up in my name I’ll make you a saint and I’ll inspire some half-blind monk to paint your portrait on the ceiling of his monastery’s outhouse”.
Mohammed: “That’s nothing. If you blow shit up in my name I’ll give you 10,000 virgins to do with as you please. I’ll also throw in all the wine you can drink.”
I’m taking Islam’s offer. I now want to be called:
Mohammed-Abdul-Myweiner
I’m sensitive to the fact that Muslims seem to have issues with Christians, Ba’hais, Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, homosexuals, Wiccans, Amazon headhunters, tourists, Mormons*…hell, just about everyone on the planet!
*If I left anyone out, I’m truly sorry…
Let’s stay focused on the issue.
The fundamentalist Islamofascists (FIs) believe that no political commentary can be expressed regarding Mohammed. When such commentary is made, those FIs call for the death of the commentator.
I, conversely, believe that virtually all political expression must be permitted.
OK, that’s clear enough. Now…
I am quite content to sit back as the FIs and the governments they support and which support them prohibit any political commentary from being expressed regarding Mohammed in their nations. I have not called for the death of any FI who does not want to allow political commentary regarding Mohammed in his country.
Conversely, many FIs do not accept that in my country, which is not ruled by nor supported by nor supportive of FIs, I am free to express my political opinions and commentary regarding Mohammed in my nation.
Now, who is being intolerant?
Who is committing violence?
Who is killing?
Not every Muslim is an “Islamofascist”.
It’s clear that many moderate Muslims find the cartooons offensive, even if they happen to hold freedom of expression nearer and dearer than they do the customary taboo against images of Muhammed.
Outraging liberal and moderate Muslims, and giving the FIs reason to wrap themselves in the cloak of extreme austerity and righteousness, and to stir up trouble, is a bad idea. The Abu Ghraib photos were outrage served on a silver platter; these obscure cartoons had to be dug up. Since it was the bad guys who did the digging and disseminating, it’s pretty clear that outrage is in their interests.
Compromise with the FIs? Not going to happen. Disintegrate the block on the otherside: there’s a variety of people there, with a variety of interests, united by outrage. Don’t give them reasons to unite, drive wedges between them instead.
Cartoons of Muhammed-the-bomber are dumb. Outrage and unity.
A cartoon–wish I could draw–that divides is smart. Imagine, if you will, an over the shoulder shot. Man’s at his work bench. To one side, there’s a Koran open to an appropriate verse… something about peace and children. Spread out on the the rest of the table are bomb making materials… dynamite, wires, timer… and a sliced up teddy bear into which this bomb will be placed. The door to the workroom has been opened, by a small child, who is asking, “Daddy, can we go to the park after prayers?” Creates just the rights kind of cognitive dissonance, raises the same questions as the cartoons in question, but puts the spot light on the asshole at the workbench. And it’s a wedge. And how many are going to march against that?
But that’s not going to help manage the current situation… and to that question, I have no answers.
The items you offer for comparison are false/misleading.
Bush and most American Admins (Dem and Rep alike) are not interested in spreading liberal democracy, but rather American Hegemony (that’s kind of their job). Look to Haiti, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc. etc. etc. I see American meddling in countries where the current leadership has been democratically elected. Why do we support folks like that crackpot in Uzbekistan? He’s democratic? Why is Bush so cozy with Vladimir? He’s a liberal democrat? Not hardly. Give me time, I’m sure I can come up with lots more examples of places we do the exact opposite of spreading liberal democracy. We do so when and where it suits our interests. That’s it.
Bodo
Several Muslim news organziations are now reporting Norway has criminalized blasphemy. I haven’t been able to find confirmation from any Norwegian sources.
[quote]The Norwegian parliament has amended the Penal Code to criminalize blasphemy in the wake of the republication of Danish cartoons that lampooned Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) by a Norwegian magazine, Christian and Muslim leaders in Norway said on Tuesday, February 14.
“Law 150-A, which has been approved by parliament, criminalizes blasphemy and clearly prohibits despising others or lampooning religions in any form of expression, including the use of photographs,” Norway’s Deputy Archbishop Oliva Howika told reporters after a meeting in Doha with Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars.
Howika was among a Norwegian delegation that also included the chairman of the Supreme Islamic Council in Norway, Mohamed Hamdan.
“Under the new law, the crime of blasphemy will be punished either by a fine or imprisonment,” Howika said, promising Qaradawi to fax him a copy of the law after being published in the country’s official gazette.[/quote]
Bodo,
None of the examples I gave were misleading. In fact I said there is no doubt that we have supported dictatorships, and I gave Saudi Arabia as an example. Was that misleading? You gave Uzbekistan as another example of America’s support of dictatorships. I agree with you; Islam Karimov is nearly as bad as Hussein. I don’t disagree that we’ve opposed democratically elected governments. I am proud to say that we strongly opposed Hitler, a democratically elected leader. We oppose Hamas, another democratically elected government that just happens to want to kill every Jew in Israel. We oppose Chavez, a democratically elected leader who imprisons his political opponents.
As I said before, my definition of democracy is much broader than just elections. I believe that protection of minorities, free speech, rule of law, and much more are all required before a government can rightfully call itself a real democracy. Even though Bush (and other US Presidents of both parties) have supported various dictators, I believe that Bush is sincere in his conviction to make Afghanistan and Iraq democracies. My point was just that equating the United States with the Muslim Brotherhood is completely ridiculous.
[quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“tempogain”]
exactly, and the ironic thing is that the western press largely IS censoring itself to satisfy concerns. I guess the moslem world won’t be happy unless every media outlet and citizen of the west toes their line. personally I find such an attitude an intolerable insult to our cherished western (not American namahottie) value of freedom of speech. embassy burning anyone?[/quote]
[quote=“namahottie”]
I don’t know if you are questioning my patriotism or criticizing my lack of it. But I strongly suggest you clarify what you meant. [/quote]
I certainly will Namahottie.
I had posted this:
[quote=“tempogain”]
our way is freedom of speech and freedom of the press, who’s telling who their way is better or correct? [/quote]
to which you replied
[quote]
Our way between the Pacific and the Atlantic as far as I’m concerned. What the Danes choose to do is their thing. But it seems as if our talking to God(which one would that be? )President seems to think that our constitution fits one and all. [/quote]
thus my comment. nothing to do with a lack of patriotism![/quote]
Sorry still slow on the uptake, are you questioning my patriotism or criticizing what I expressed?
[quote=“games”]
If yes, can you provide a link? One hears a lot about that ‘silent Muslim mainstream opposing extremism’. Somehow I must have missed all these self-critical demonstrations (not to mention the riots) about that recently. Odd, the ones when there were demonstrations all over Europe about the invasion of Iraq in 2003 somehow made it onto my screen. Ditto the constant criticism the Bush administration draws within the U.S…[/quote]
As my favorite man of the day said once to a reporter “Nice try but don’t try”(sic) Bush 12/19.
Why don’t you provide links. I don’t have the time nor the intrest in regurgitating what someone else’s opinion to back up my opinion.
[quote=“Namahottie”]
Sorry still slow on the uptake, are you questioning my patriotism or criticizing what I expressed?[/quote]
imo “our way” as far as this issue refers to the west and not just the us, ummm again i am not questioning your patriotism
[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Not wanting tio hoiok in on ya there Namahottie, but:
Salman Rushdie did just that. Sadly the Japanese translator of his work was murdered and an Italian translator is lucky to be alive. Meanwhile, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are still itching for Rushdie’s head.
This isn’t about race or ethnicity, it is very much about what sort of culture you want to live in. I personally prefer to live in a society where writers, artists and all people are free to express their ideaswithout fearing a fatwa.
HG[/quote]
No problem.
[quote=“Toasty”]
I don’t believe this debate is about semantics. We are debating one of the most important issues in our world today. If it starts to bother you, simply take a break from the action. I don’t think your call to shut down the discussion is a very fair thing to do to the rest of us who feel this thread has value. Just say no to that kind of authoritarian censorship.[/quote]
No this thread is not about semantics now. In fact, it’s great how it’s turned out. I’m learning alot of things, seeing different aspects of the situation that I wasn’t aware of .
Great posts by Elegua, neon,gao,spook, and err 
Jaboney(but the Canadian stuff I can’t relate too much to. Sorry 
) And actually Jdsmith made a good point.
I’m not really up to the standards set in this forum. It seems like most of the conversations are littered with links to this and that. Like I’m in the mist of a poli-sci pissing contest of Yale professors. While I can respect a link that would inform, IMO a lot of posts tend to just regurtate someone else’s opinion instead of the poster actually incorperating the article with their own opinion and expanding on it, TM, Jaboney,spook and a few others are excused from this opinion.
We are living in some hard ass times. But this right and wrong converstation is the stalemate in the process to peace. Or just no war. As Imaniou pointed out in the last thread, that men need to give up their power and let the women rule. Sorry, I’m not for that. I think that there needs to be a balance of power. I’m not ready to throw the baby(men) out with the bath water. I’m ready to work with them, give them some tools, other points of views that would move the world toward peace or the space of respecting other space.
I get that these Islamofacists aren’t interested in squat but ruling their areas their way. So, then let them do it. We are so interested in speading democracy and freedom, then give them those princples. IMO it seems that they have been reacting so violently is because the West has been infringing on those ideals to serve their own selfish needs.
Now that’s my 2cents with out a link to provide to back it up.
And for my last word, CS you need really need a time out. Your comments about women with all the cussing doesn’t bring anything to the table.