The Cartoon Dispute

[Insom Elvis]

Egypt, Palestine, Syria, North Africa—the core of the Christian world—had been conquered by Muslim jihad warriors and subjected to Islamic rule and law.

"Jihad warriors"? Weren't the Crusaders jihad warriors?

And "subjected"? Where would you have chosed to live? Moorish Spain or Christian Europe?

http://www.africawithin.com/black_history/..._chapter18.html

Cordoba was the most wonderful city of the tenth century. It was served by 4,000 public markets and 5,000 mills. Public baths numbered in the hundreds. This amenity was present at a time when cleanliness in Christian Europe was regarded as a sin.

Education was universal in Moorish Spain, available to the most humble, while 99% of Christian Europe was illiterate

In the tenth and eleventh centuries, public libraries did not exist in Christian Europe, while Moorish Spain had more than seventy, of which the one in Cordoba contained over six hundred thousand manuscripts.

Scientific progress in astronomy, chemistry, geography, mathematics, physics, and philosophy flourished in Moorish Spain. Scholars, artist and scientists formed learning societies, while scientific congresses were organized to promote research and to facilitate the spread of knowledge. A brisk intellectual life flourished in all Islamic dominated societies.

You seemed to have missed the point - however, that Muslim empire unfortunately no longer exists. Maybe they can attain these things again, but not if they keep up the psychotic violence, and certainly not under the leadership they have today.

Exactly, who has more libraries now, if you want to go that route? Maybe the people of these hate-filled countries have been kept in the dark by their leaders or lack of scientific progression? Maybe they should try being social and share in the rest of the worlds knowledge. Not every invention we use came from the country we reside in, this is a product of communication with other nations, coherent communication, and political relations. Try sharing technology with a civilization that is every bit as brutal and inhumane as they were in the dark ages. We have advanced while they have not. They have profited from our technology mostly only by using our leftovers, but you won't find great new concepts coming from the middle-east. Change is unacceptable in much of the middle-east and in their minds, things like equality for the sexes and open voting would be untolerable change.

[August1991]

Cordoba was the most wonderful city of the tenth century. It was served by 4,000 public markets and 5,000 mills. Public baths numbered in the hundreds. This amenity was present at a time when cleanliness in Christian Europe was regarded as a sin....

You provide one biased source for that affirmation.

This is typical of bad historical research. One wants to make a point in the present by selectively interpreting facts from the past. The further back the history is, the easier it is to select, interpret, surmise or even invent.

To confront radical Islamic fundamentalism, critical thinking rather than hagiography would be more useful.

I'm not denigrating the nature of Moorish Spain (of which I admit to having only a passing knowledge) but I know that there is another side to the story (as is often the case).

[hades_ibex]

I find it remarkable that "we" by definition are the good guys and "they" are the bad guys. It is their fault for the Crusades. We were forced to liberate lands from libraries and cleanliness. It was their fault that our military occupied their lands a hundred years ago. We were forced to civilize them. It is their fault that they have corrupt and reprssive governments. We didn't contribute to this. It is their fault that Iraq was invaded. These guys are hysterical. Look at them burning embassies.

You people sound like an abusive husband who blames the wife for the beatings he dishes out. She's hysterical and has it coming.

[August1991]

I find it remarkable that "we" by definition are the good guys and "they" are the bad guys. It is their fault for the Crusades. We were forced to liberate lands from libraries and cleanliness. It was their fault that our military occupied their lands a hundred years ago. We were forced to civilize them. It is their fault that they have corrupt and reprssive governments. We didn't contribute to this. It is their fault that Iraq was invaded. These guys are hysterical. Look at them burning embassies.

You people sound like an abusive husband who blames the wife for the beatings he dishes out. She's hysterical and has it coming.

I dislike that husband/wife comparison for so many reasons. But have with it. The wife is torturing the kids, and the husband is trying to stop her.

----

I have been through this before with Western Leftists during Soviet times. Then too, they wanted to say that it was simplistic to say Soviet=Bad and America=Good. I discovered that when Western Leftists became apologists for the Soviets, they weren't saying anything about the Soviet Union at all. Their opinion was entirely based on a rejection of the West. These Western Leftists wanted to be marginal, and defending the Soviets was their way to do that.

Well, the Politburo was bad and it is no more. Whether the ordinary people living behind the Iron Curtain were good or bad was rather irrlevant.

Radical Islamic fundamentalists are very different from the Soviets, and dealing with them will be different too. The Soviets were criminal, ideological fanatics. These Islamists are criminal, medieval fanatics.

[Argus]

There are a lot of people looking through some kind of reality-distortion prism. The Crusades were their fault? Can you explain how the British and French occupations in the 1800s were their fault too? I'm sure they were. We drop bombs from airplanes onto cities, and they are the savages?

Someone asked Gandhi what he thinks of British civilization, and his response was, "I think it would be a good idea." Look in the mirror.

You might examine the spread of Islam, and how it was spread, and what the Crusades were a response to. Yes, they were a response to something.

As for Gandhi criticising British civilization, we saw just how civilized India was when it was partionated, didn't we? Literally millions slaughtered in religious hatred and violence of an almost unbelievable brutal and viciously inhumane nature.

[Argus]

Egypt, Palestine, Syria, North Africa—the core of the Christian world—had been conquered by Muslim jihad warriors and subjected to Islamic rule and law.

"Jihad warriors"? Weren't the Crusaders jihad warriors?

Yeah, but I think most of us feel there's a difference between making war to defend something, and making war to conquer.

And "subjected"? Where would you have chosed to live? Moorish Spain or Christian Europe?

Well, if you loved your religion, you would have chosen to live where you could practice that religion. But Islam was spread by the sword, whole cities of "infidels" slaughtered when they refused to cast aside their own religion in favour of Islam. When the Islamic warriors came calling, you either praised allah or died.

[Argus]

I find it remarkable that "we" by definition are the good guys and "they" are the bad guys.

Well, we don't bury women up to their shoulders in dirt and stone them to death for infidelity. We don't hang teenage girls from cranes for being raped. We don't murder people for saying unflattering things about God. We don't run around frothing at the mouth trying to kill people because we heard someone somewhere, half a world away, in a country we've never heard of before, drew something unflattering about the prophet.

It is their fault for the Crusades.

Actually, yes.

You people sound like an abusive husband who blames the wife for the beatings he dishes out. She's hysterical and has it coming.

Yes, the Muslims are such a gentle, kindly, innocent .... woman? Better watch out, pal. I bet they don't like that comparison. You'll be buried up to your head and have stones chucked at it.

[Shady]

It is their fault that they have corrupt and reprssive governments

Yes, it is there fault. They live in sheltered, non-advancing countries with repressive governments precisely because of their religion. Thier lack of openess in every aspect of their societies, especially where education and economics is concerned is the fundamental (pun intended) problem. This problem existed long, long, long, before "evil" America ever stepped foot in the middle east.

[YankAbroad]

Both sides who are arguing all this cultural shit are being manipulated.

The whole Cartoongate is over cartoons which were published over four months ago but "not noticed" until recently.

The Iranians, using the rhetoric of their useful idiots in the West, have suddenly become "very concerned over western Islamophobia." I mean, Lord knows the Iranian government is a beacon of human rights and tolerance for oppressed people around the world.

They've pulled off a masterstroke in that developing all this "rage" allows them to channel it towards the Europeans who are leading the diplomatic effort to prevent them from developing nukes. They've changed the rules of the game from "we're illegally developing nukes and lying about it" to "those European Islamophobes hate all Muslims and want to oppress us."

They even took potshots at weak nations which cannot defend themselves -- countries like Denmark and Norway -- rather than strong powers such as Britain or France which are capable of doing so. Pure genius. They've manipulated the dim masses into providing them with cover to get their nukes -- rest assured that any European or American diplomatic or military efforts against Iranian nuclear weapons would be met with a much bigger version of what we're already seeing.

Meanwhile, all the people in the US clamouring for a confrontation over this are doing the bidding of the Bushies, who desperately need an "international crisis" in order to divert attention from all the heat they're getting over their illegal activities back home.

In short, Bush and Iran are propping each other up.

To characterize this situation as a "war" or "clash of cultures" is to give it too much import. This is just a big band of thugs having their way with countries incapable of projecting power or protecting their embassies in Middle Eastern countries, and clever Iranian politicians using the victimhood rhetoric of the politically correct western upper middle classes to transform themselves from perpetrators of horrible violence into "righteous victims of Islamophobia."

[Durgan]

All religions be off; you all have too much blood on your hands.

Talk to the inukshuk as an individual and you will have peace. No books only you and your God. Simple.

Durgan.

[Insom Elvis]

Both sides who are arguing all this cultural shit are being manipulated.

The whole Cartoongate is over cartoons which were published over four months ago but "not noticed" until recently.

They were recently noticed because someone decided to bring it to the attention of some very important people in the Muslim populace and even he now regrets it.

They've pulled off a masterstroke in that developing all this "rage" allows them to channel it towards the Europeans who are leading the diplomatic effort to prevent them from developing nukes. They've changed the rules of the game from "we're illegally developing nukes and lying about it" to "those European Islamophobes hate all Muslims and want to oppress us."

Agreed.

They even took potshots at weak nations which cannot defend themselves -- countries like Denmark and Norway -- rather than strong powers such as Britain or France which are capable of doing so. Pure genius. They've manipulated the dim masses into providing them with cover to get their nukes -- rest assured that any European or American diplomatic or military efforts against Iranian nuclear weapons would be met with a much bigger version of what we're already seeing.

Agreed

Meanwhile, all the people in the US clamouring for a confrontation over this are doing the bidding of the Bushies, who desperately need an "international crisis" in order to divert attention from all the heat they're getting over their illegal activities back home.

Bull. Do you know how often I come in contact with a person who claims to hate Bush, shudders at his image on the t.v. or becomes offended at his very mention? Everytime I come into contact with a person who seeks social status, dependent on today's anti-Bush campaign. The media presents those who hate him so the world must hate him to be part of the accepted world. Like he could do anything without full congressional support, and they could do anything without full support from their representatives? And what illegal activities? I guarantee if i was one of the dozens of reporters following Bush around day and night, I could dig up some decent dirt, but I'd get better dirt on you or myself in a heartbeat.

In short, Bush and Iran are propping each other up.

Maybe, but if that's the case, may the best man win.

To characterize this situation as a "war" or "clash of cultures" is to give it too much import. This is just a big band of thugs having their way with countries incapable of projecting power or protecting their embassies in Middle Eastern countries, and clever Iranian politicians using the victimhood rhetoric of the politically correct western upper middle classes to transform themselves from perpetrators of horrible violence into "righteous victims of Islamophobia."

Noone in this is righteous, although I'd die to protect an islamic family persecuted by Christian dictators or the same vice-versa. If both parties are thugs, why does one kill its prisoners while the other feeds them?

[Durgan]

Hagiography interesting word.

Function: noun

1 : biography of saints or venerated persons

2 : idealizing or idolizing biography

Most poor old farm boys wouldn't know the meaning of hagiography, and might subscribe intelligence to the user of such without a definition.

Durgan.

[scribblet]

"I looked on my map and couldn't fiind this Eurabia you speak of."

Neither could I...

thought you might like this one:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/773

We, too, want to live in peace, but for the short time that we, Europeans, still have before the era of Eurabia, we want to do so in our land according to our rules, not those of islam. Jyllands-Posten wondered whether this was still possible in a country with a Muslim minority. It found out that when a country has let in a Muslim minority it has let in the Muslim majority from the rest of the globe. Today Muslim radicals set the Middle East on fire, bullying their religious minorities, because we dare to “disrespect” them, our religious minority (which our political leaders have so foolishly allowed to enter our countries), by printing mild cartoons in our newspapers.

[Black Dog]

Here's an interesting twist: three years ago, Jyllands-Posten refused to publish cartoons portraying Jesus, on the grounds that they would offend readers.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.

Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

[August1991]

Hagiography interesting word.

Function: noun

1 : biography of saints or venerated persons

2 : idealizing or idolizing biography

Most poor old farm boys wouldn't know the meaning of hagiography, and might subscribe intelligence to the user of such without a definition.

I think that's a reference to my usage. I meant that another poster presented an idealized view of Muslim rulers of Moorish Spain. Given the thread's title, there was a little joke there too. I'm sorry if I seem pedantic.

[Durgan]

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.

Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

Probably a good choice in the refusal. One never knows when a fearful Christian might be an advertiser; also, nowhere today are people blasting innocents with sucicide bombers yelling, Jesus loves me." However, with the current violence taking place in the name of Islam, the cartoons were poingnant and appropiate for the times.

The internet if full of cartoons about the Christian religion, pedantic priests, confessional antics, Pope hypocrisy, Christian healers on the TV, etc.

Durgan.

" There never was a man as great as the average dogs believes his master to be." Bob Edwards 1917

The True God

[geoffrey]

I think you guys are all mistaken.

The muslims aren't mad because we've criticised them. They are mad because we don't believe in their religion.

The fact that we depicited Allah is the problem. I don't happen to believe in Allah or that depiciting him is a problem. Apparently for this I should be killed...

[YankAbroad]

Do you know how often I come in contact with a person who claims to hate Bush, shudders at his image on the t.v. or becomes offended at his very mention

I'm one of those people. Then again, I hate a criminal in high office, shudder at the idea of the illiterate criminal president on television, and become offended at the fact that he hasn't been impeached for lying to Congress and committing a blatant violation of constitutional law twice -- the Iraq war and his illegal wiretappings.

Then again, this whole situation has nothing to do with Bush. He's just a useful idiot in the broader scheme of things, just like Bill Clinton, who was busy spending days begging for forgiveness on behalf of the west for "these horrible, hateful cartoons."

They are mad because we don't believe in their religion

That's likely accurate as well. Most fundamentalists are enraged by the idea that there are people who disagree with them.

[Leafless]

Durgan

You wrote- " Hagiography interesting word.

Function: noun

1:- biography of saints or venerated persons

2:- idealizing or idolizing biography"

If the second definiton of the word "hagiography" is "idealizing or idolizing biography" which is worshiping saints, correct. Also hagiographer in my dictionary "is a writer of the lives of saints not necessarily a biographer."

Then what purpose does the noun "hagiolatry" serve if you already have it included in "hagiography" as idealizing or idolizing.

Then another closely related word "hagiology" is "literature dealing with the lives and legends of saints."

I challenge you to pick out ANY well informed member or members of society to correctly define the different meanings associated with these closely related words to define them correctly and not only directed at "some poor old farm boy" suggesting this falls under your definiton of ignorant asshole.

[Durgan]

Durgan

You wrote- " Hagiography interesting word.

Function: noun

1:- biography of saints or venerated persons

2:- idealizing or idolizing biography"

If the second definiton of the word "hagiography" is "idealizing or idolizing biography" which is worshiping saints, correct. Also hagiographer in my dictionary "is a writer of the lives of saints not necessarily a biographer."

Then what purpose does the noun "hagiolatry" serve if you already have it included in "hagiography" as idealizing or idolizing.

Then another closely related word "hagiology" is "literature dealing with the lives and legends of saints."

I challenge you to pick out ANY well informed member or members of society to correctly define the different meanings associated with these closely related words to define them correctly and not only directed at "some poor old farm boy" suggesting this falls under your definiton of ignorant asshole.

What is your beef? It almost seems I am having a comunication with a Muslim. Your perception is so deep that you are reading information in the previous posts that simply is not there. Maybe you should go shovel some pig shit for exercise. I have heard it also helps the mind at least the cognitive process.

Durgan.

[moderateamericain]

I have several guns for the day they try to infect this country with there shit. I admit it im bigoted towards islamic culture. Ill kill any motherfucker who trys to convert me, my family, friends, or neighbors, forcefully to islam.

[durok]

For things that I simply don't comprehend, like this rioting over cartoons episode, I try to find an analogous situation in 'my world' and figure what we'd do. Knowing that there's nothing in the Koran against drawing cartoons of The Prophet (it's just something the clerics have thought up) I tried to find where something like this had happened in Christendom to see how we reacted. The closest I've come to a comparison is the prohibition for Catholics (I was raised Catholic) from eating meat on Fridays - it wasn't in the Bible but was instituted by the Pope (the prohibition ended about 30 ago but I spent my entire childhood 'knowing' it was a sin to eat meat on Friday). I'm trying to remember how many riots we Catholics went on because the Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc, disregarded our beliefs and ate meat on Friday. Of course, I don't remember a single instance of us thinking that other religions had any reason to abide by our tenets.

What in hell are these crazy muslims doing anyways?

I've come to one conclusion. Anyone who thinks this is a religious issue is looney-tunes. It's 100% political and, as happens so often in the Middle East, their powers-that-be (the clerics) are fomenting rage against the West in order to keep it's focus off of them.

[scribblet]

For things that I simply don't comprehend, like this rioting over cartoons episode, I try to find an analogous situation in 'my world' and figure what we'd do. Knowing that there's nothing in the Koran against drawing cartoons of The Prophet (it's just something the clerics have thought up) I tried to find where something like this had happened in Christendom to see how we reacted. The closest I've come to a comparison is the prohibition for Catholics (I was raised Catholic) from eating meat on Fridays - it wasn't in the Bible but was instituted by the Pope (the prohibition ended about 30 ago but I spent my entire childhood 'knowing' it was a sin to eat meat on Friday). I'm trying to remember how many riots we Catholics went on because the Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc, disregarded our beliefs and ate meat on Friday. Of course, I don't remember a single instance of us thinking that other religions had any reason to abide by our tenets.

What in hell are these crazy muslims doing anyways?

I've come to one conclusion. Anyone who thinks this is a religious issue is looney-tunes. It's 100% political and, as happens so often in the Middle East, their powers-that-be (the clerics) are fomenting rage against the West in order to keep it's focus off of them.

Well, I agree with that, the fire is being stoked by Islamic clerics who wish to incite hatred and violence . Their long term goal is a wide world Caliphate, and if the ROTW doesn't wake up soon, we may live to see it. IMHO they wish to divide the West, fuel the violence and start real cultural war.

[Durgan]

I have several guns for the day they try to infect this country with there shit. I admit it im bigoted towards islamic culture. Ill kill any motherfucker who trys to convert me, my family, friends, or neighbors, forcefully to islam.

It is probably safer to purchase a prayer mat, particularly if you live in Canada. Here is a URL for the best at bargain prices.

http://tryhourt.notlong.com

Durgan.

"About he only people who don't quarrel over religion are the people who haven't any." Bob Edwards 1920

[Black Dog]

I've come to one conclusion. Anyone who thinks this is a religious issue is looney-tunes. It's 100% political and, as happens so often in the Middle East, their powers-that-be (the clerics) are fomenting rage against the West in order to keep it's focus off of them.

While the powers that be over here keep the attention on the radicals to keep out focus off them. Neat trick.