Is it OK to insult Islam in Canada?

[Muddy]

The problem is that you mistake specific and sensational instances of different culture groups for a general condition of Islamic "society" rendering what you have to say as utter nonsense. Of every instance you cite above, one can easily draw a similar general conclusion about our own society. And I bet you are completely unaware of how your argument drops credibility aren't you?

Brutal.

Our own society ! Uh ,please describe our society? Is that faith based or seculer? I know of no laws within the Christian or seculer society that practice or believe in the treatment of women as I described in Canada!I don`t believe that all followers of Islam take the Koran and it`s teachings quite so literally ,the same as not all Christians do not take the Holy Bible literally. But within Islam there are people who are proponents of what I have previously described in regards to women and girls and they act upon these beliefs. Where we might have dingbats in the Christian world there are no excuses made for goofy and dangerous behaviour.Ask why there are not more Irshads , Tariks and Rushdies? Whoops I think I answered that ,they all have prices on their heads.

[M.Dancer]

Of every instance you cite above, one can easily draw a similar general conclusion about our own society.

What exactly are you condemning ?

Moral equivilency.

Islam has as its sword, the judical rule of law in the countries it holds sway. You cannot look at the west and say the same things are true here.

I will be the first to admit, with its teeth pulled by western civilization and secularism, Islam is benign. We can't say that is so in: 90% of the nations that are considered muslim.

[Michael Hardner]

But within Islam there are people who are proponents of what I have previously described in regards to women and girls and they act upon these beliefs. Where we might have dingbats in the Christian world there are no excuses made for goofy and dangerous behaviour.

Not true. Dingbats, as you call them, do have patriarchal cults that are Christian based. There are also elements of our society that permits disrespect to women that strict religious societies do not, at a cost of freedom of course.

Now that some Islamic reformers have been identified, you move the bar and say there are no enough.

You may have fooled Morris, but not me.

[M.Dancer]

Now that some Islamic reformers have been identified, you move the bar and say there are no enough.

Islamic reform will not come from Toronto or London.

You have been fooled.

[Michael Hardner]

Moral equivilency.

Shwa wasn't engaging in that:

Of every instance you cite above, one can easily draw a similar general conclusion about our own society.

The quote is one "can" draw a "similar" conclusion - in other words, criticism cuts both ways, i.e. look to your own culture also. He didn't say that the West was worse or as bad as those countries.

Muddy, on the other hand, doesn't distinguish between his targets and the language is direct and unqualified.

[Michael Hardner]

Islamic reform will not come from Toronto or London.

You have been fooled.

It's not a centralized religion like Catholicism, so reform will spread as a virus, and not handed down from a central authority. That said, even the Catholic church behaves differently in the new world than in Europe and the Third World, i.e. it is more liberal.

The advantage of a decentralized church is that reform doesn't need to be approved by the top of the heirarchy. The disadvantage is that it has to happen one person at a time.

[maple_leafs182]

Well if we want to stop making enemies we should not be insulting people or be fighting wars.

[Michael Hardner]

Moral equivilency.

To be clear, I also believe that the Western way, i.e. separation of church and state, is superior but there's no point in being smug about that. We certainly had nothing to do with making it happen.

[Shwa]

Moral equivilency.

Right. Moral equivalency.

Adultery - Wisconsin

Scott Schmidt - preventing his wife from committing adulteryso he murdered her.

Charged with Adultery - faces court-martial

Hire a US Military Lawyer

But that isn't really the point is it? I wonder how many women in Canada and the US were murdered, beated or abused by their spouses on the suspicion of adultery.

[Shwa]

The quote is one "can" draw a "similar" conclusion - in other words, criticism cuts both ways, i.e. look to your own culture also. He didn't say that the West was worse or as bad as those countries.

Yes, that is correct. I thought that was pretty clear, but for some, I guess not.

[M.Dancer]

Right. Moral equivalency.

Adultery - Wisconsin

Scott Schmidt - preventing his wife from committing adulteryso he murdered her.

And you cliam that is a judicial ruling?

Charged with Adultery - faces court-martial

Nice try. Except the charge wasn't adultery.

Hire a US Military Lawyer

You may be surprised to learn that adultery is not listed as an offense in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The UCMJ is a federal law, enacted by Congress, to govern legal discipline and court martials for members of the armed forces.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/adultery.htm

But that isn't really the point is it? I wonder how many women in Canada and the US were murdered, beated or abused by their spouses on the suspicion of adultery.

Plenty I'm sure. But that isn't the point. They are criminals and if caught are triied as criminals. In many ilsamic nations, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan....they are honoured and a new bride is sent their way...

Thanks for coming out...

The enforceability of adultery laws in the United States has been / is being questioned following Supreme Court decisions since 1965 relating to privacy and sexual intimacy of consenting adults, in cases such as Lawrence v. Texas; however, occasional prosecutions occur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#North_America

Edited April 12, 2010 by M.Dancer

[Shwa]

And you cliam that is a judicial ruling?

Does it need to be?

Nice try. Except the charge wasn't adultery.

A former sector commander in Alaska is facing a general court-martial for charges of adultery, fraternization and other sexual improprieties. Capt. Herbert “Mark” Hamilton III has been charged with 30 counts, including: failing to follow orders; lying to investigators; committing adultery with enlisted personnel; sending and receiving “sexual and amorous text messages” using a government cell phone; photographing sexual acts; downloading and storing sexually explicit material on his government-issued laptop; and making an official phone call “while engaged in sexual activity,” according to charging documents.

I must have missed the "wasn't adultery" part. Oh, there it is, it says,"facing."

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/adultery.htm

But that isn't really the point is it? I wonder how many women in Canada and the US were murdered, beated or abused by their spouses on the suspicion of adultery.

Plenty I'm sure. But that isn't the point. They are criminals and if caught are triied as criminals. In many ilsamic nations, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan....they are honoured and a new bride is sent their way...

But that is the point entirely. How many serial killers have been caught in the past 20 years? How many serial rapists? How many "criminals" have been caught that slaughtered innocent women and children?

Ah, but it is all OK because, you know, we caught them and tried them as criminals. Eventually. Well, most of them. We hope.

Thanks for coming out of the closet.

[M.Dancer]

Does it need to be?

Yes. Because similar actrions in many islamic countries are a man's right and duty. So much for your equivilency.

I must have missed the "wasn't adultery" part. Oh, there it is, it says,"facing."

Yes you missed it alright...

He wasn't charged with adultry...he was charged with...

committing adultery with enlisted personnel

Am I safe to assume you are smart enough to figure out what that means in the context of officer/enlisted relationships?

Probably not...

[M.Dancer]

But that is the point entirely. How many serial killers have been caught in the past 20 years? How many serial rapists? How many "criminals" have been caught that slaughtered innocent women and children?

What does that prove? How many homnour killings here go unpunished as opposed to Islamic countries? How many adulterous wives were lashed here on the order of the court?

[KeyStone]

Around the western world of democratic countries there seems to be some considerable debate about whether or not it's OK to insult Islam. I find this peculiar because for decades holly wood has made films insulting to Christianity.

Do the hardline Christians protest? Sure they do. That's their right.

But the case of Islam becomes intriguingly different for a couple of reasons.

First, a Dutch filmmaker (Theo Van Gogh) was murdered when he made an unflattering film about Islam. He was shot several times then his throat was cut to near decapitation, then a dagger was pinned to his chest with a note full of Islamic threats.

Similarly, not too long ago a Muslim man invaded the home of the guy who made those infamous cartoons depicting Mohammed, and attempted to kill him. My point? It has become increasingly dangerous to speak freely in any disparaging way about Islam. What this means in practise is that certainly you may be free to make a movie about Islam, but really - are you willing to risk it? Steven Spielberg has made some interesting challenging films. Similarly, Brokeback Mountain or Capote were films that were supposed to be "daring" and "fighting the power". But were they really that courageous? Was Billy Graham showing up at Jake Gillenhall's doorstep with a gun and a machete?

Here's a test for Hollywood courage: make a movie about how women are treated in the Middle East and see how much more protection you'll need at the red carpet, let alone your own home.

Second, if threats of violence are not enough to deter you from saying ANYTHING badly about Islam in the media, how about actual government power? As we now know, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant were hauled out on the carpet at the Human Rights tribunals for saying disparging things about the religion. They eventually won their case, however it was only due to deep pockets and their willingness to fight and fight hard. Imagine a normal private citizen facing the same inquisition? You would be railroaded and the expense would be enormous. In other words, you better just keep your mouth shut about Islam or you'll be paying...and paying and paying, that price.

Is this freedom?

In many many nations in the mid east, it is illegal to insult the prophet. Have we gotten there in our own country, without really realizing it? If we de facto cannot insult the religion here in Canada, are we that far off from the religious tyranny that exists in Saudi Arabia?

http://bnp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/muslim-march.jpg

It's really about how you insult the religion.

B'Nai Braith and the CJC continually assault Islam, and try to pinpoint Islam as the source of all evil.

Judaism on the other hand is off-limits.

Ever seen a movie critical of the Jews? A TV show? Every time everyone so much as hints that Israel might be less than perfect, there is an inquest.

You can criticize Islam etc, but when you suggest that Mohammed was a pedophile etc, you are jumping into the camp of people who didn't think the holocaust existed, etc. What we need to do is understand the difference between valid criticism and dialogue intended to induce fear and hatred of the religion.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Judaism on the other hand is off-limits.

Ever seen a movie critical of the Jews?....

Yes...there are many. Ever heard of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ ? It has grossed over $600 million (USD).

[bloodyminded]

Yes...there are many. Ever heard of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ ? It has grossed over $600 million (USD).

Only conservative Christians like that movie.

And by my count, one is not "many."

Edited April 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

What does that prove? How many homnour killings here go unpunished as opposed to Islamic countries? How many adulterous wives were lashed here on the order of the court?

It proves that those living in glass houses should not throw stones.

[bloodyminded]

It proves that those living in glass houses should not throw stones.

Also--and it's interesting that many people assiduously avoid this basic truism--we should be much more concerned with our own failings and our own bad behaviour. Everyone here agrees wholeheartedly that the treatment of women and girls (among other groupings) in some Islamic regions is abhorrent. But it has no moral effect to point this out...not if your reason for doing so is to praise our own elevated ethical excellence.

And this IS the reason it is generally pointed out. Somebody illustrates terrible Western practices, and the reflexive response is to point out others' failings: a form of turning-the-face-away dressed up in an irrelevant pretence to moral concern.

No, the basic moral stance is to worry first about our own failings, our own rot; because we live in societies where there is some potential remedy for these failings.

Getting defensive about it, and insisting on highly politicized comparisons, is often a form of cowardice, in my view.

Edited April 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

It proves that those living in glass houses should not throw stones.

What nonsense..I would ask if that's the best you can do....but that would be rhetorical.

[Moonbox]

But that is the point entirely. How many serial killers have been caught in the past 20 years? How many serial rapists? How many "criminals" have been caught that slaughtered innocent women and children?

No, you're missing the point entirely. Serial killers in the Western world are universally viewed as villains and violent nuts. They're put away and never see the outside of a jail again.

Ah, but it is all OK because, you know, we caught them and tried them as criminals. Eventually. Well, most of them. We hope.

Thanks for coming out of the closet.

Sure, some serial killers get away with it. Unfortunately you can't catch them all. The fundamental, and very important difference, is that those violent killers are not accepted in our society and we remove them, or at least try to. Woman are murdered regularly in many Arab cultures for doing things like trying to read or showing their legs. Their murderers are celebrated as men of honour and faith.

Comparing the two is absolutely brainless.

[eyeball]

Well if we want to stop making enemies we should not be insulting people or be fighting wars.

Islam isn't a person but, point taken. There are far too many ways one can be insulted to really make sense of the responses to the question.

Insults are often in the eye of the insulted. Take atheism for example, it's an affront to pretty much everyone. Then you've got atheists who get insulted if you try to tell them atheism is a religion.

People are funny and it's just too hard to resist taking a poke at them from time to time I guess.

[ToadBrother]

People are funny and it's just too hard to resist taking a poke at them from time to time I guess.

Religions in particular can be a wealth of satire, irony and lower forms of comedy. Just watch the old Dave Allen shows where he mocked the Catholic Church at every opportunity.

[KeyStone]

Yes...there are many. Ever heard of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ ? It has grossed over $600 million (USD).

+

It was hardly critical of the Jews.

Yes, there were a couple of bad guys in the movie, that happened to be Jewish. You might be interested to know that Jesus was also Jewish. However, even having a Jewish character in the movie that is bad, is enough to ruin a career.

It's like saying that any move with a black criminal in it, is critical of black people.

[myata]

Comparing the two is absolutely brainless.

As is applying one society's cultural norms and traditions to a totally different one. Righteous fingerpointing can go on forever, and not necessarily in our Western culture's favour considering all of its manifestations, not just the selected ones that match prejudged pattern. I.e. complete with two hugely violent world wars, multiple episodes of mass murder, persistent pattern of colonisation, interference and plain unprovoked aggression. And right off the news, quasi institutionalized paedofilia, a relatively minor contribution considering the above.

Rather than moralising from non existent, in the entirety of the picture superiority platform we could for once turn to ourselves and clean our own act so that in time (of their own choosing) the others could look at our model and maybe try to follow, in their own way and out of their own will. But that would be too hard an undertaking, professing empty words backed by little practical act is a lot more practical (i.e affordable) strategy, ne c'est pas?

Edited April 13, 2010 by myata