God-Fearing People

[sharkman]

Another observation wrt the Hitchen's opinion piece.

It is entitled :

God-Fearing People, Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?

who is now claiming to be an atheist?

Why does he use the inclusive pro-noun, 'we' in his title?

if he is doing it to include himself, he is then not an atheist, as he claims.

If he is using the pronoun we , as a reference to "God-fearing people" as a group, who exactly is the 'We', he is referring to, who is the 'we' he is writing this for??

IMO, the 'we' he is writing this for, whom it will resonate with the most are the evangelical, "god-fearing" christians.

The biggest irony in this article is that Christopher Hitchens the atheist, who should have no use for religion at all, writes an article to tell the "god-fearing" christian evangelicals, that they are apparently to scared to offend Muslims!

Preposterous!

I don't presume to know what was going through Hitchen's head with the specific usage of the word 'we' in a sentence. However, one shouldn't draw conclusions about someone without looking at their entire body of work. A couple of months ago, Hitchens wrote an article that denied the existence of God and provided much reason to high five among athiests. Maybe you read it, I believe it was discussed on this forum.

[Melanie_]

Why are we so afraid of offending muslims?

Rushdie is a good example. For simply writing a book that muslims found was offensive (I don't know what part of it), a fatwa was issued on him.

This is like being a witness to a mafia slaying - when contract killers are put on you. You're dead....or you run and change your identity.

What about that European movie director who was killed by a Muslim who found his movie insulting?

The cartoons?

Even most media seem to walk on eggshells when talking about Islam or Muslims.

The west had been effectively intimidated by Muslim radicals...and our current trend and penchant towards appeasement had only made that much simpler. We have bowed down to bullies. Plain and simple.

Lets keep in mind that Rushdie himself is Muslim; he advocates for change within his religion - a counterpoint to those who claim all Muslims are bloodthirsty jihadists. It's important to recognize that there are people within Islam who speak out and are willing to take risks in order to move forward, just as the brave journalist did when writing the article Scriblett mentions.

I have to laugh every time someone brings up the cartoon debate. They were published. They were widely seen. Freedom of speech was not trampled here (I do think it was offensive to publish something to be deliberately provocative, but I feel the same way when I see Hustler magazine). There will always be a push and pull between what is acceptable for some to say in the name of freedom of speech, and what violates community standards, which are always fluid anyway.

Theo Van Gogh, the movie director, was murdered by a Muslim who didn't like his movies. Unfortunately, this is why stars pay for bodyguards - there are loony tunes out there. Mark David Chapman comes to mind - should the rest of us hold the Catcher in the Rye responsible for the death of John Lennon, because MDC interpreted it in his own warped way?

I don't see the bowing down to bullies that you claim; I'm not denying that there are radicals within Islam, but the appeasement you see is just a figment of your imagination.

[ScottSA]

Lets keep in mind that Rushdie himself is Muslim; he advocates for change within his religion - a counterpoint to those who claim all Muslims are bloodthirsty jihadists. It's important to recognize that there are people within Islam who speak out and are willing to take risks in order to move forward, just as the brave journalist did when writing the article Scriblett mentions.

I have to laugh every time someone brings up the cartoon debate. They were published. They were widely seen. Freedom of speech was not trampled here (I do think it was offensive to publish something to be deliberately provocative, but I feel the same way when I see Hustler magazine). There will always be a push and pull between what is acceptable for some to say in the name of freedom of speech, and what violates community standards, which are always fluid anyway.

Theo Van Gogh, the movie director, was murdered by a Muslim who didn't like his movies. Unfortunately, this is why stars pay for bodyguards - there are loony tunes out there. Mark David Chapman comes to mind - should the rest of us hold the Catcher in the Rye responsible for the death of John Lennon, because MDC interpreted it in his own warped way?

I don't see the bowing down to bullies that you claim; I'm not denying that there are radicals within Islam, but the appeasement you see is just a figment of your imagination.

It is this sort of willful blindness, or naivetee, that has allowed things to get to this point. The "radicals" in Islam are busy blowing themselves up. It's the so-called "moderates" who are reaping the benefits by playing good cop to the terrorists bad cop. Do you actually listen to what Cair-can says? Do you see the lawsuits and threatened lawsuits being flung at everyone in sight in the states? These are clear intimidation tactics funded by Saudi Arabia and aimed at freedom of speech.

[jefferiah]

Melanie, you have actually helped make the point Betsy was trying to make, though that was not your intention. Kuzadd responded to Betsy's examples of the cartoons and Betsy's criticisms by saying in effect "Look, you say whatever you want about Muslims and you are not afraid." And then you explain the difference between Betsy and a cartoon in a Danish paper, or the difference between Betsy and Salman Rushdie. Betsy posts on MLW, the other people get published, seen, heard. I have never heard of Christians or Jews after Dawkins head.

No one is saying all Muslims are bad, but its getting harder and harder to say that there is something going on with Islam. When the pope made a mistake look at the riots and the nuns that were shot. There seems to be alot of "lone nut" Islamic Mark David Chapmans, Melanie. Ask someone from Britain. Ask people in Germany.

I don't know much about Cair-Can, Scott. But some of the folks at CAIR (U.S.) have made some very disturbing statements that would lead one to believe they are looking out for more than the protection of Muslims from discrimination.

Edited August 5, 2007 by jefferiah

[kuzadd]

Betsy posts on MLW, the other people get published, seen, heard. I have never heard of Christians or Jews after Dawkins head.

That's right Hitchen's got published, the cartoons got published, Betsy and Scriblett and other posters spout endless biases, They are NOT afraid of offending Muslims, in any way shape or form.

Nor is MEMRI, Nor was the danish paper, Nor is David Horowitz, Mark Steyn both of whom writes entire books of criticism and hate. Nor are many many other individuals , inc Christopher Hitchens and all the media outlets that publish material that these individuals write, the entire premise is as bogus, as the rapture.

Cause if they were all so afraid, NONE of that would be happening.

Please I hope, you don't insist on carrying on with what has to be one of the most bogus aspersions made and obviously bogus to boot!

Oh and as for Mark David Chapman

http://www.tv.com/dateline-nbc/show/10461/...7&flag=1&order=

"Proclaiming he had found “Jesus”, Chapman used his new found religion to justify at least some of his intent. Lennon had famously commented once that “The Beatles were more popular than Jesus”. Having been there, I can promise you this was taken way out of context in the course of an interview. People at that time were looking for reasons to reject this new kind of music and long haired Englishmen. The statement was made in the 1960’s, yet Chapman didn’t take issue with it until the 1970’s. What is obvious in retrospect is the beginning of the spiraling decline of Mark David Chapman’s sanity, disguised as a religious zealotry, which in many people today, is the same. There is no counting the number of deaths and mass murders by so-called religious, self-righteous men who are nothing more or less than insane. Also like so many others, J.D. Salinger’s “The Catcher In The Rye” (the character of “Holden”) seemed to influence him even more.

He also was all religiously "wacked out", a born-again CHRISTIAN, who murdered an icon.

Yet, only muslim's are religious fanatics who murder people, eh?

Bogus, Bogus, Bogus, Bogus!!!!!

The difference is the media focus's on the religious aspect of Muslims, but, Mark David Chapmans fanatic religious beliefs fly under the radar.

Edited August 5, 2007 by kuzadd

[jefferiah]

But the difference is these people (Chapman and others) were very much the lone nut, whereas when the Pope offended muslims there were mass riots. When it was the Danish cartoon it was not some lone Chapman spouting hatred at the west, it was a massive crowd. Watch the documentary Christian Amanpour did about the Muslims in Britain. Ask people who are leaving Germany and other euro nations to come west.

You are right that the Danish cartoonist was not afraid. His free speech was not supressed, but look at the ridiculous result of his free speech. Politicians "are" afraid to offend them.

The Muslim fanaticism has occured in large groups, this is why I said to Melanie that there seem to be a lot of Chapmans . Google "Walid Shoebat", the ex-PLO terrorist. He has some interesting things to say about the Nazi-esque hatred of Jews he was bred on, and how Radical Islamists use Mosques (even in America) to recruit.

Now I will say again Kuzadd, I don't think muslims are all bad or that they are all this way. But right now this problem is undeniably prevalent in Islamic culture.

[ScottSA]

Kuzzad, this kind of specious equivalency hurts your case far more than it helps it. Citing Chapman and the odd abortion clinic yahoo and trying to juxtapose them against the hundreds and sometimes thousands of killings in the name of Islam, per month, does nothing but show the complete bancruptcy of your case.

Islam has been using bully tactics for a decade now in the west...the bad cop "terrorists" blow up something, and the good cop "moderates" come out of the woodwork vaguely "condemning" the action and then adding a "solution" which happens to accord with the exact aims of the terrorists eg: "get out of Iraq," or "nuke Israel" or some such. What is particularly amusing is when they claim that terrorism "has nothing to do with Islam," and then claim that such and such a policy that Muslims don't like is to blame for it.

People are finally starting to twig on to the tactic Kuzzad...everyone but useful fools.

[betsy]

Lets keep in mind that Rushdie himself is Muslim; he advocates for change within his religion - a counterpoint to those who claim all Muslims are bloodthirsty jihadists. It's important to recognize that there are people within Islam who speak out and are willing to take risks in order to move forward, just as the brave journalist did when writing the article Scriblett mentions.

Rushdie is just one of many Muslims who either spoke out, or had participated in depiction of scenes or actions that are deemed either insulting or against the religion (some of which are actors/actresses in movies branded as either controversials or "heretic"). Some of these people either went into hiding, or had to deal with the clamor for their "punishments" by protesting mobs or radical lobby groups in their own societies.

Yes, they were able to express their opinion. BUT AT WHAT PRICE?

Note that Rushdie's book was done and released on democratic soil. So did the murdered film director's movie!

To think that if I would choose to lampoon or demonize Islam in my work of fiction as a creative writer (the way that others had creatively re-interpreted, demonized and lampooned the Christian religion) in a western society, that I may have to do it at my own risk?

The current global situation involving radical Muslims make for excitable plot for thrillers and high-action films.

WHY IS THERE HARDLY ANY MOVIE BEING MADE DEPICTING RADICAL MUSLIMS BEING THE BAD GUYS? What few movies that did eventually have their storylines either justifying the "angst", soliciting understaning for their actions.....and usually end up pointing the fingers of blame on the western government!

What happened to good old movies like that portraying European/Russian/Asian mob guys as the bad guys in a straight movie? You'd think this is one area that hollywood would exploit and milk for all it's worth in the box-office!

I would bet that producers, writers and even screen actors don't want to touch that one depicting Islam/Muslims as the bad guy....out of fear of reprisals!

In other words, they were effectively being intimidated from practicing their creative freedom of expression!

I have to laugh every time someone brings up the cartoon debate. They were published. They were widely seen. Freedom of speech was not trampled here (I do think it was offensive to publish something to be deliberately provocative, but I feel the same way when I see Hustler magazine). There will always be a push and pull between what is acceptable for some to say in the name of freedom of speech, and what violates community standards, which are always fluid anyway.

Melanie, you may think it is a laughing matter...and dismiss my concern, since you say after all, "they were published. They were widely seen."

But have you noticed the violent reactions all over the world that followed? Not to mention the barrage of obvious attempts at appeasements from western societies?

The message? "Everyone, pay close attention. This is the carnage that will happen everytime you say something that we don't agree with! People will die. And it is your fault."

It's largely thanks to those few publishing houses that bravely stood up against this duck-tape attempt to control freedom of expression!

Theo Van Gogh, the movie director, was murdered by a Muslim who didn't like his movies. Unfortunately, this is why stars pay for bodyguards - there are loony tunes out there. Mark David Chapman comes to mind - should the rest of us hold the Catcher in the Rye responsible for the death of John Lennon, because MDC interpreted it in his own warped way?

Yes, you could say that.

However, the murderer of John Lennon was just one looney tune.

I don't see only one sole Muslim protester doing all these vandalisms and other acts of violence everytime something is said that insults them! We usually see a mob of loonies!

Yes, stars do hire bodyguards for protection. I bet how many stars are willing to take the risks and pay for bodyguards to protect them (and their families) from radicals. It's one thing to look out for an odd would-be assailant in public.....and it's quite another to be on the fatwa list which means all radicals, including those that do take their religion seriously enough to go for you at all cost - including their willingness to die for that sole fixated purpose of seeing you die. Compound the incentive to kill you as a form of martyrdom!

Can one afford to pay for enough bodyguards for life? Because this thing could last a lifetime, you know.

Do you think Rushdie will ever live a normal life? Do you understand what that does to you psychologically?

Rushdie was made as an example!

It was made to have us all see how it must be to be in Rushdie's shoes!

Have you ever imagined how life could be if a crazed psychopath is fixated and obsessed by you?

Multiply that psychopath into hundreds! All over the world!

I don't see the bowing down to bullies that you claim; I'm not denying that there are radicals within Islam, but the appeasement you see is just a figment of your imagination.

As explained above, don't tell me intimidation and appeasement is just a figment of my imagination.

I would say my "imagination" is more realistic - more understanding of the human psyche.

I'd say my attempt at assessment is based on simple common sense.

We are being "conditioned."

You may have a lack of imagination or you just choose to see what you want to see.

Edited August 5, 2007 by betsy

[kuzadd]

Now I will say again Kuzadd, I don't think muslims are all bad or that they are all this way. But right now this problem is undeniably prevalent in Islamic culture.

Jefferiah, the ENTIRE premise of this Hitchen's piece is "God-Fearing People, Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?"

There is ZERO truth to that it is a faulty premise it is as simple and as obvious and as logical as that!

Including this author and this article and other authors I previously listed any number of books, all critical all published.

Inc: but not limited to:

"Nor is MEMRI, Nor was the danish paper, Nor is David Horowitz, Mark Steyn both of whom write entire books of criticism and hate. Nor are many many other individuals , inc Christopher Hitchens and all the media outlets that publish material that these individuals write."

Also all the websites such as Little Green Footballs, et al!

There is in fact endless criticism, there is an increase in hate crimes, there are round-ups, there are attacks on Arab countries.

The simple FACT is the claim is bogus, it is a faulty premise, a lie, to stir up more fear and more hatred.

I won't stop you from believing it , if you so choose, but based on all information, and known facts, this suppositon is false! Therefore if you believe it , IMO, it is not a belief based on facts, but on rhetoric.

[buffycat]

I'm just thinking - how is the call for Rushdie to be whacked any different that extra judicial assassinations carried out by certain governments? (At least with the Rushdie contract it's not a state doing it?)

Just wondering how the Muslim bashers here will spin that...

[rolleyes]

Edited August 5, 2007 by buffycat

[Black Dog]

scribblett?

Jyllands-Posten (Danish paper - cartoons) is another example of how we are intimidated by violent protests, and of course the riots and burning of France. All this and more are tests of our willingness to stand up to their demands; which are about influencing the West with the gradual encroachment of Sharia type laws and encroachment onto the western concept of free speech.

I'll give you the cartoon controversy, but laugh at your depiction of the riots in France as being religiously motivated. And "gradual encroachment of Sharia type laws"? 'tis to laugh. Seriously, would it kil you people to provide examples of Islamic bullying and ways in which the west failed to stand up to it?

[betsy]

I'm just thinking - how is the call for Rushdie to be whacked any different that extra judicial assassinations carried out by certain governments? (At least with the Rushdie contract it's not a state doing it?)

Just wondering how the Muslim bashers here will spin that...

[rolleyes]

Hmm...The Ayatollah made a public announcement when he decreed the fatwa on a harmless civilian like Rushdie, whose only "crime" was to write something that is deemed by Muslims as an insult to Allah.

As to "extra judicial assasinations" carried out by certain governments....you must mean governments run by despotic leaders, which are no different than Iran, where human rights have no meaning at all.

I suppose you miss my explanation to Melanie...

How would you feel if a serial killer decides to fixate on you, announcing that he'll go after you - no matter what! I bet that you'll go all sweaty knowing that is quite an understatement.

What about if you're not only talking of one psychopath who wants to see you die?

Now compound that problem by adding an incentive to your slaughter - a price on your head.

Plus the belief of religious fanatics that eliminating you is doing their god a great favor!

(At least with the Rushdie contract it's not a state doing it?)

Something seems terribly wrong with that statement. What exactly do you mean by that?

Should Rushdie feel relieved, you think?

Is it okay then for you?

Do you think it's okay for any religious group to put a contract on your head and your family for any deemed insult you might have done or said?

Edited August 5, 2007 by betsy

[ScottSA]

Jefferiah, the ENTIRE premise of this Hitchen's piece is "God-Fearing People, Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?"

There is ZERO truth to that it is a faulty premise it is as simple and as obvious and as logical as that!

Including this author and this article and other authors I previously listed any number of books, all critical all published.

Inc: but not limited to:

"Nor is MEMRI, Nor was the danish paper, Nor is David Horowitz, Mark Steyn both of whom write entire books of criticism and hate. Nor are many many other individuals , inc Christopher Hitchens and all the media outlets that publish material that these individuals write."

Also all the websites such as Little Green Footballs, et al!

There is in fact endless criticism, there is an increase in hate crimes, there are round-ups, there are attacks on Arab countries.

The simple FACT is the claim is bogus, it is a faulty premise, a lie, to stir up more fear and more hatred.

I won't stop you from believing it , if you so choose, but based on all information, and known facts, this suppositon is false! Therefore if you believe it , IMO, it is not a belief based on facts, but on rhetoric.

I don't expect you to admit you're wrong...you're not that kinda guy...but just on the odd chance that you actually ARE looking for "facts" instead of rhetoric, there's a huge and quite well known effort to shut down criticism of Islam...through all means possible, including the fabrication of words like "Islamophobia," legal means, threats of lawsuits, even implied threats of violence. Here's another example right here:

...And who's behind that radicalization? Who funds the mosques and Islamic centers that in the past 30 years have set up shop on just about every Main Street around the planet?

For the answer, let us turn to a fascinating book called "Alms for Jihad: Charity And Terrorism in the Islamic World," by J. Millard Burr, a former USAID relief coordinator, and the scholar Robert O Collins. Can't find it in your local Barnes & Noble? Never mind, let's go to Amazon. Everything's available there. And sure enough, you'll come through to the "Alms for Jihad" page and find a smattering of approving reviews from respectably torpid publications: "The most comprehensive look at the web of Islamic charities that have financed conflicts all around the world," according to Canada's Globe And Mail, which is like the New York Times but without the jokes....

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/mark-ste...7-exposs-column

Try to understand that just because they haven't fully succeeded doesn't mean they are not trying. Issuing fatwas against authors, killing nuns over cartoons and shooting film makers is just the tip of the iceberg. The huge sums of money and legal threats all over the world are the real danger. Useful fools will continue to deny it of course, no matter how many "facts" and showed to them. Are you a useful fool or did you really mean it when you appealed to "facts?"

[jefferiah]

Jefferiah, the ENTIRE premise of this Hitchen's piece is "God-Fearing People, Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?"

There is ZERO truth to that it is a faulty premise it is as simple and as obvious and as logical as that!

Including this author and this article and other authors I previously listed any number of books, all critical all published.

Inc: but not limited to:

"Nor is MEMRI, Nor was the danish paper, Nor is David Horowitz, Mark Steyn both of whom write entire books of criticism and hate. Nor are many many other individuals , inc Christopher Hitchens and all the media outlets that publish material that these individuals write."

Also all the websites such as Little Green Footballs, et al!

There is in fact endless criticism, there is an increase in hate crimes, there are round-ups, there are attacks on Arab countries.

The simple FACT is the claim is bogus, it is a faulty premise, a lie, to stir up more fear and more hatred.

I won't stop you from believing it , if you so choose, but based on all information, and known facts, this suppositon is false! Therefore if you believe it , IMO, it is not a belief based on facts, but on rhetoric.

What is Little Green Footballs? Is it mainstream media? Do they wield any political power? Would Little Green Football literature compare to statements made by a political leader or an Anglican bishop?

[buffycat]

As to "extra judicial assasinations" carried out by certain governments....you must mean governments run by despotic leaders, which are no different than Iran, where human rights have no meaning at all.

Certainly:

http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/btselem_...icial_killi.pdf

I think you hit it well on the head with the use of the word 'despotic'. LOL

Do you think it's okay for any religious group to put a contract on your head and your family for any deemed insult you might have done or said?

Absolutely not. I imagine alot of women in Salem weren't too happy about the Christians trying them in various inventive methods either...

[ScottSA]

Certainly:

http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/btselem_...icial_killi.pdf

I think you hit it well on the head with the use of the word 'despotic'. LOL

Absolutely not. I imagine alot of women in Salem weren't too happy about the Christians trying them in various inventive methods either...

It's scary when someone can actually invoke the 17th century in order to draw a parallel with the 21st century. It's even scarier when they are such shallow thinkers that they actually expect not to be laughed at.

[buffycat]

It's scary when someone can actually invoke the 17th century in order to draw a parallel with the 21st century. It's even scarier when they are such shallow thinkers that they actually expect not to be laughed at.

LOL@ you Scott. Hahahahahahha!

Thanks for the entertainment!

[scribblet]

It's scary when someone can actually invoke the 17th century in order to draw a parallel with the 21st century. It's even scarier when they are such shallow thinkers that they actually expect not to be laughed at.

It's even scarier that they find the whole thing so humorous, wouldn't be such a laughing matter if they were under constant rocket attacks - all the while expected not to defend themselves.

I guess muslims or ex muslims like this one don't count especially as she's under a death threat too, same as the Canadian gal - but hey after all it's only Israel we have to worry about huh.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/...i/index_np.html

"Everyone is afraid to criticize Islam"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiege...,399263,00.html

There's lots more but what the hey - we don't have to worry about it nah

[betsy]

Certainly:

http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/btselem_...icial_killi.pdf

I think you hit it well on the head with the use of the word 'despotic'. LOL

Absolutely not. I imagine alot of women in Salem weren't too happy about the Christians trying them in various inventive methods either...

Well I guess we'll never be on the same page since you cannot differentiate between the incidents of war you cited above from issuing a fatwa to a harmless civilian such as Rushdie, just for writing a book!

Hello? Wakey-wakey.... Your link's title even says it all there - crimesofwar!

And when I speak of despotic, I speak of leaders like the evil Saddam Hussein, or that ugly baboon ruling Zimbabwe (what's he called again?) who would think nothing of blowing your brains out just for the sheer fun of it.

As for Israel "assassinating" their enemy...I'd say, good for them! No sense playing with gloves on!

If I'm the head of Israel, I'd do the same! Heck, when you're at war...you fight to win!

Anyway, this thread is not about war...nor about witch-hunting centuries ago. You're out of focus again!

It's about why we are so afraid of offending Muslims.

So come float down back over here - present time- and join us right on this topic.

Edited August 6, 2007 by betsy

[kuzadd]

I guess muslims or ex muslims like this one don't count especially as she's under a death threat too, same as the Canadian gal - but hey after all it's only Israel we have to worry about huh.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/...i/index_np.html

"Everyone is afraid to criticize Islam"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiege...,399263,00.html

There's lots more but what the hey - we don't have to worry about it nah

oh this is hilarious!!!! I mean seriously!

scribbs posts articles, criticizing Islam, as PROOF that people are afraid to criticize islam

everyone is afraid, but her, she is one of the" most sharp tongued critics"

"Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a member of the Dutch Parliament, is one of the most sharp- tongued critics of political Islam "

note again Salon published the article!!!!

then the same regurgitated interview in DerSpeigel, from 2006, she is critical and DerSpeigel is STILL PUBLISHING IT!

Yup, I am sure there is more scribbs!!

More and more criticism, cause no one , anywhere appears to be afraid of criticizing Muslims!!!

You just keep helping my arguement, that NO ONE is afraid of Muslims, by posting reams of critical arguements and people willing to be critical!! Thanks!

Oh and BTW, didn't this woman discredit herself, for lying and more

Discredited Somali Quits Dutch Politics

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6051601872.html

"Tuesday she would give up her seat and leave the country because she is being stripped of citizenship for lying on an asylum application 14 years ago."

what she demonstrates is an opportunism not unheard of for a politician.

She made herself, non-credible all on her own.

Edited August 6, 2007 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

What is Little Green Footballs? Is it mainstream media? Do they wield any political power? Would Little Green Football literature compare to statements made by a political leader or an Anglican bishop?

it's just one of many, many, many Islam critical outlets.

Along with the numerous ones I already mentioned and the ones that just keep getting posted here.

No one is afraid to criticize Muslims or Islam!

not writers, not politicians, not websites, no one!

[cybercoma]

I seem to recall several media outlets and websites refusing to post the Danish cartoons because they didn't want to further incite violence. So, from that example alone, you're wrong, obviously there is a fear of criticizing Islam.

[kuzadd]

I seem to recall several media outlets and websites refusing to post the Danish cartoons because they didn't want to further incite violence. So, from that example alone, you're wrong, obviously there is a fear of criticizing Islam.

I don't know exactly why the few who didn't publish them, chose not to.

Was it fear? I am not sure. Perhaps that is the general assumption. BUT, is it correct?

Perhaps some media outlets chose not to print them as: 1- they were widely available anyway, so there was no advantage (in sales) to doing so.( In the age of the internet, if it's available in Europe, it is on line here, before a paper goes to press :time differences)

2:Perhaps the advantage from a sales point of view was to portray the media outlet, as holding itself to a higher standard, thereby taking the higher ground and being 'not offensive'.

We cannot assume media outlets chose to not publish out of fear, as SALES and PROFITS are THE driving factor, not fear.

I myself, think reason number one is the most viable, with reason number 2 being the advantage of doing so.

But, you yourself, can take a look around this forum, at the number of articles published, and posted here, the number of posters who criticize endlessly inc, the "footbath" thread, the books published, the number of publishers, politicians , authors, etc., who are willing to criticize and overall, you will find there is NO fear of being critical of Muslims.

Can one deny the increase in hate crimes?

Can one deny the roundups?

Can one deny the reams of critical articles?

btw: I saw the cartoons myself, so clearly they were widely accessible.

Edited August 6, 2007 by kuzadd

[ScottSA]

I don't know exactly why the few who didn't publish them, chose not to.

Was it fear? I am not sure. Perhaps that is the general assumption. BUT, is it correct?

Perhaps some media outlets chose not to print them as: 1- they were widely available anyway, so there was no advantage (in sales) to doing so.( In the age of the internet, if it's available in Europe, it is on line here, before a paper goes to press :time differences)

2:Perhaps the advantage from a sales point of view was to portray the media outlet, as holding itself to a higher standard, thereby taking the higher ground and being 'not offensive'.

We cannot assume media outlets chose to not publish out of fear, as SALES and PROFITS are THE driving factor, not fear.

Can we assume they chose not to publish them because they said they were afraid? Here's a survey of journalists themselves, overwhelmingly claiming that the danish cartoons were not published by most news outlets in the west because of fear: http://www.compas.ca/data/060219-FreedomOf...ressPrt1-PC.pdf On top of that there are 100s of lawsuits every day, many with the backing of CAIR, whose pockets lead directly into Saudi Arabia, fatwas, and actual deaths, and I don't see how any sane person can claim there's not a pattern of intimidation. Just because most people don't cringe from it doesn't mean it's not there.

[CLRV]

Kuzadd is absolutely spot-on. We bomb their cities flat, round up their men and women and incarcerate them for years without trial or charges laid. Stack them in nude pyramids. Shove light sticks up their asses. Screw them over for their natural resources. Install brutal puppet dictatorships like Saddam's and the Taliban's, then use that self-same brutality as an excuse for another bombing mission. But somehow at the same time we try to make it look like we live in fearful deference of them. You talk about doublethink?

Nobody is afraid of criticizing muslims. Nobody. Look at how they are portrayed in any Hollywood movie. Dirty, greasy, chanting, snaggle-toothed savages clad in rags and dirt. Go out and rent "Rules of Engagement" some time. It might be very instructive.

And Christopher Hitchens has completely blown his own credibility by being one of the major cheerleaders who helped get America into the Iraq quagmire by parrotting the lies and disinformation, known to be false at the time and since proven so. Anybody who listens to anything he says at this point deserves what they get.

As for other religions. Tell me the Christian Right has no power in America, or that anybody can say anything they want against Christianity without drawing their fire. Tell me it's possible to criticize Israeli policy without the extremely powerful Jewish lobby slamming you as an anti-semite.

Edited August 6, 2007 by CLRV