Rhetorical Question for My Muslim Friends
Vilks’ cartoon depicting Mohammed came on the heels of Muslim outrage about cartoons originally published in Denmark in 2005. The republication of the cartoons several months later sparked violent protests in the Muslim world and prompted death threats against the cartoonist.
Vilks’ cartoon, which was published in August 2007 by the Swedish newspaper Nerikes Allehanda, did not provoke that level of global protest, although it has stoked outrage.
via Police: Swedish cartoonist object of attempted attack – CNN.com.
Just out of curiosity — exactly how much of a wuss does your God have to be, do you think, if he can’t take being picked on by a Swedish cartoonist?
I almost can’t wait to see which fringe/attention-hungry satirist decides to make himself a Canal Plus documentary subject by publishing the next image of The Prophet. Can we all take bets on this? I’m lobbying hard for the next Rob Schneider movie — maybe a supernatural-themed sequel, like Deuce Bigalow 3: Gigolo of the Eternal Afterlife or something – to include a bi-curious Mohammed scene.
Is that the most offensive thing imaginable? I’m straining hard but can’t think of anything worse. A Gilbert Gottfried routine also has possibilities, I guess. By the way, has anyone seen that new Gottfried-narrated ad for the “ShoeDini” shoe-horn? It’s the best film I’ve seen this year.
Okay, excuse the digression, I’m going back to work now…
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
re gilbert gottfried
it lessens the sting of living in a world without billy mays
Isn’t this the problem with religion in general? Believe whatever crazy thing you want if it keeps you from raping, killing, or just plain being a dick. But when it turns people into raving lunatics because a really old book told them to, don’t we have to start reexamining the value of faith in society?
Matt:
Thanks for the link to the hilarious ShoeDini ad.
Clearly what America needs right now in its never-ending “War on Terror,” even if we don’t call it that anymore, is the patented “grip-clip” shoehorn, as in, let’s get a grip, ok, everybody?
The could prove to be a useful device for Muslims as well in their own battles against Swedish cartoonists.
It’s hard to believe that a spiritual leader known as the “Prophet” didn’t see the need for this one coming.
And now the patent belongs to the infidels!
Have you heard of this?:
Secular Students Drawing Muhammad in Solidarity with Threatened South Park Creators
http://www.secularstudents.org/node/3128
More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day
This has put me in a little internal quandary. I’m not given to offending people without reason and I wouldn’t have participated in the Danish cartoon contest. On the other hand, I do want to stand in solidarity with the people who have been killed or threatened for exercising their freedom of speech. I have a few more days to mull it over.
By the way, the person whose drawing originally prompted the idea, desperately, desperately, desperately wants to distance herself from it.
In response to another comment. See in context »The question you’re asking is essentially “Hey, religious people with theological beliefs, can’t you be secular and not worry about those theological beliefs for once?”
Or maybe “Hey, ostracized religious minorities with theological beliefs whose homelands have been targeted by repressive governments and a series of devastating military invasions, can’t you be secular like us liberal westerners and not worry about your theological beliefs for once, even if they tie into deep-rooted issues of economic marginalization and post-colonial legacies?”
Or maybe just “Can’t you be more like us?”
…or, maybe, “Can’t you be like all the Muslims through history that did put up with Mohammed imagery (indeed commissioned it as art)”, and especially “Can’t you be like all the Muslims that didn’t bother going to that talk so as to be outraged, and really don’t give a rat’s ass about outrages to Mohammed that aren’t actually thrust in their face?”
Please remember that the “newspaper cartoon contest” that caused so much larger protest only did so months after the paper was published to no special Muslim outrage. The outrage was deliberately built by activists that took the cartoons on tour, along with an utterly false claim that an unrelated photograph of a man in a pig mask was one of the cartoons.
In response to another comment. See in context »Or maybe he was just asking why they’re expending all that negative energy on a cartoonist.
If they really understood the true meaning of “The desert is the Garden of Allah”, then they’d realize how counterproductive their protestations and threats of violence actually are.
In response to another comment. See in context »All religions should use these cartoon incidents as a teachable moment. Ok, maybe not religions, but whoever’s job it is to teach the dangers of moral certitude. I guess religions would be the last place to look for that lesson, eh?
I don’t see the big deal. I find these cartoons offensive. And why shouldn’t I? Otherwise, why bother professing to follow any religion at all?
Regardless, this issue is a distraction of little consequence. On Yahoo News, the “breaking story” of the hour was about some cartoonist that got head-butted. Big fucken deal, why is that even news? I got spat on the other day by some homeless guy cause he felt like it. Who cares, it’s life.
Next time you bitch about some old lady seeing Jesus in her grilled cheese sandwich, think about this story passing as “international news”
I think your writing on Goldman Sachs and the overall financial crisis is newsworthy and important. It effects many more lives then this nonsense.
Exactly. Why bother professing to follow any religion at all? If it forces you to act like a psychopathic buffoon, perhaps you might want to reexamine that decision.
In response to another comment. See in context »Well, of course it’s more of a case of people forcing the religion, not the other way around. Bibles and Korans don’t commit acts of psychopathic buffoonery, psychopathic buffoons do.
In response to another comment. See in context »Just a quibble, but Mohammed is a prophet, not the god in the Muslim religion, unless I’m quite mistaken. Allah is one of the names of God, I believe (not that I believe in any god at all, but I did take some comparative religion courses many years ago).
It’s arguable that this kind of behavior by Muslims goes strongly against the spirit of Islam – by making Muhammad’s image verboten, they’re certainly raising his status above that of a man, which, despite being a prophet, he still was. That kind of competition with God is so much the basis of other prohibitions in Islam, why not here? As for constructing an image, the whole center of the Islamic tradition is based around storytelling about Muhammad, from the Hadith, in oral traditions, in the form of biographies (see Martin Lings’, for example, well-respected in the Muslim world) – if all of this isn’t building up an “image” of Muhammad, of his actual being and not just his physical appearance, isn’t that a sin of even greater magnitude, along this line of reasoning?
In response to another comment. See in context »Nice one. Now you’re actually going to have to think before you go on the same Bill Maher show as Salman Rushdie.
Aflac Gottlieb kills you but you hate Flo from the Progressive commercials. Allah be praised, she’s adorable — I’d slam her for an hour and slather my goo all over her Mohammad tramp-stamp.
Most people who base their lifestyles around the belief in an invisible super hero that watches over them are fucking batshit crazy. But this type of lunacy takes the cake.
I weigh 500 lbs I use a ShoeDini to put on my slippers. I have my Shoedini in one hand and a picture of my prophet in 3D using a Shoedini in the other.
I am going to get a 2nd helping of dinner. I need to bulk up. Good times.
Aimlow Joe was here.
http://www.aimlow.com
The outrage over depictions of Allah strikes me as the same sort of fake outrage I saw black men practice in prison with the “don’t you be talkin’ ’bout my mama” segue to violence. Too campy for my sensibilities, but I saw it all the time.
A few questions to ponder…
I wonder if anyone has done any kind of study comparing religious excuses for violence against the rationales of all other violent crimes commited?
Is religion just a pretext for nutcases who were bound to kill someone eventually, like video games or heavy metal music? Or does it cause people to become nutcases like sports and politics?
Have more Europeans have been killed by Muslims citing religious offense or by soccer hooligans? Are Europeans more terrified by soccer games or threats by religious ideologues?
Did the Danish cartoon or Glenn Beck’s “Progressives are cancer” rant generate more death threats against innocent people? Are we just stupid (and cowardly) to even care so much when muslims make threats over something like this?
These are good questions, honest questions. The exact opposite of the questions posed in the post.
In response to another comment. See in context »Last time I checked, close to 3000 Americans died because of Muslim extremists…
Not to mention the possibility for the hundreds that could have died from all the extremists whose plans were stopped by the American government.
I hate to break it to you, but Muslim extremists have killed tens of thousands across the globe.
In response to another comment. See in context »What good is a ShoeDini without a SockDini?
The actions of a religion’s adherents says more them than it does about the religion. People who commit horrendous acts in the name of their religion, whatever it may be, are not following its teachings, but violating and perverting those very teachings. The defect is not so much in the religion, but the practitioner. Terrorists committing acts of violence don’t represent true Islam any more than the crusaders of centuries past and the war-mongers of today truly represent Jesus and Christianity. If they accurately practiced the respective values and principles of their faiths, the world would be a more peaceful place. Sadly, false Muslims and Christians ruin it for the rest.
I used to agree with you that if people followed the teachings of Christ, for example, that the world would be a better place, even though I am an atheist. (You see, I didn’t have much idea of what those teachings actually are because I slept through most of my religious indoctr… instruction.)
I’ve since come to believe that good people will be good, religious or not. I recommend reading or listening to one of the “new atheists” who dispense very well with the idea that religion is a force for good in the world. Personally, I love me some Sam Harris. He’s a little less posh-sounding than Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins, but also less abrasive. Sam Harris makes a good argument that religious moderates only provide cover for the bad actors. We need less magical thinking in the world. THAT will make it a better place, imho.
In response to another comment. See in context »See below. People who commit violent acts in the name of religion are absolutely following their faith. It’s tolerance that’s the perversion of faith.
In response to another comment. See in context »Except that Islamic countries were at one point extremely tolerant of other religions. The view is that we are all Muslims, just not everybody has realized it yet.
It’s about power. Always. Tolerance comes with equality and prosperity. Intolerance comes with either being the victim of economic disperities and systemic injustice on the one end, or fear of losing unearned privilege on the other. Religion is just a means to power.
There will always be religion. Americans are developing the Cult of the Founding Fathers.
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t know if you were quoting someone else when you say – “acts in the name of religion are absolutely following their faith.”
In response to another comment. See in context »If so, I can hardly believe how right you can be so insightful about the banking system yet lack a balanced view of religion. I completely am with you on the topic you originally posted. I frankly don’t care if someone drew him naked, its a damn cartoon. If you someone doesn’t like it, there is no reason to follow it so closely then. However, in the Quran it explicitly states that committing violent acts unto others is as if you committed a violent act against the global population. This is a faulty product manufactured by people. The distinct difference should be drawn that this isn’t religions doing, its people who want to leverage the Quran so they can justify not washing behind their ears’ doing.
Yeah I’ve heard this “it’s not the religion it’s the practitioners” argument over and over again, and I can’t help but wonder how many times one can use that before one has to admit that the indoctrinated practice is so pervasive as to make violence a part of the doctrine. Based on what seems to be the curriculum at madrassas across the Arab world, isn’t this sort of like saying “guns don’t kill people, bullets kill people”?
I’m not picking on Islam; there has been no religion more engaged in murder and repression than Catholicism in the history of the world. But any and all religious teachings that lead people to say “you have to believe what I believe or I’ll kill you” should be reviled.
In response to another comment. See in context »Here is how to spot a Wahabist even if he/she claims to be ‘moderate’. I encourage you to ask members of MSA (Muslim Student Association), and CAIR these questions. Don’t pretend to ‘understand where they come from’.
1) Is there a punishment for apostates, or is it a crime?
2) Would you support religious preaching of any religion in a ‘muslim’ country?
3) Would you respect your daughter’s choice in dressing in any way she prefers?
4) Would you vote for a non-muslim running for the office of presidency in a Muslim country?
I bet no less than 65% of Muslims will disappoint if they answer with honesty. This is not about being racist or a bigot, but truly these people need serious counseling to solve that deadly contradiction between what they think Islam is about and the values of freedom and democracy. Don’t give in to the political correctness bullshit.
Finally, though reformers in the ‘Muslim’ world don’t ask you to provide money and/or support, the least you could do is NOT support regimes in Saudi, Egypt and Pakistan.
On a lighter side: Write letters to Viacom and tell them that you are offended by the showing or mention of kittens and puppies because it’s against your religious belief and it hurts your feelings. maybe use a threat of some kind on some internet site
In response to another comment. See in context »Religionists really have it down pat. The control! Every minute the “faithful” spend in prayer and study, is time they do not do anything constructive for themselves or their fellow man. Like WORK.
Think how many hours a day are wasted simply with this mental occupation requiring your full attention. Oh, and it requires a portion of your money too.
Somewhere I read that “hearing prayers shuts off believer’s brain activity.”
“When some religiously devout people hear a charismatic healer/leader speak the word of God, the regions of their brains involved in skeptical thinking and vigilance appear to shut down.”!!!!!!!!!!
The Glenn Beck cultists that listen as though he were a prophet, are suspending brain activity. What a fertile field the right wing is cultivating with Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Palin.
Religion is being exposed for what it is every day, it will implode on itself and a new more logical creed will evolve. A simple “love one another” or nothing else is possible, would be a simple start.
God is not what religion says he/it/she is. They’ve ruined it for God.
Shit I’ve spent $ on Birks – though they’re cheaper on ebay – when i could’ve waited for the Shoedini to appear!
Is Gottfried related to Lewis Black? The grit and excitement in the voice are so familiar.
Other than that, I’m checking out the secular students who are drawing the prophet these days.
We all have our buttons and most of our buttons are culturally programmed. Some people wouldn’t think of saying the n-word, but are happy to offend Muslims. 50 years ago those same people would have used the same n-word in their every day conversation.
It doesn’t seem outlandish to me to respect other cultures’ taboos, at least in polite company.
While there’s no doubt in my mind that the cartoon controversy is entirely manufactured, it seems that the manufacturer is just as much the Danish paper that sponsored the contest in the first place.
Now to show the sole of my foot to the other side, the appropriate response by the Muslim community would have been grotesque cartoons of the Pope, not death threats.
Muslim immigrants to these countries have no right to demand that others respect their cultural taboos if they’re immigrating to a country whose laws they have decided in advance not to respect. If you move to a new country with your eyes wide open without any intention of respecting the notions of free speech and free practice of religion, why should anyone respect your absurd ideas about not drawing your religious icons?
In response to another comment. See in context »“…why should anyone respect your absurd ideas…?”
Matt, I realize that too is a rhetorical question, but may I spell out the answer anyway? For most of us (I hope) the answer is that we *shouldn’t* respect them. For the rest, the answer is that religion gives people the arrogance to believe they are on the right side of god, and therefore any action they take is justified and every indulgence is deserved. Gee, why did Sarah Palin’s face just pop into my mind?
In response to another comment. See in context »I’ll agree that they have no legal right, but I think that in interests of politeness, we should respect those who visit or immigrate to our shores. Your attitude (hilariously displayed in your writing) seems to be fuck ‘em all, but that it isn’t a way to construct a civil society. There are levels of respect that can exceed that which is legally required. The Danish newspaper commissioned the cartoons to deliberately test the forebearance of Muslims. I am adamant in my support for free speech, but that doesn’t mean that we should forbear to speak freely when the only effect is to offend.
In response to another comment. See in context »So does that mean the kids of these immigrants, by virtue of being born in the country, have a right to such demands?
And why do I get the feeling that, if took place in Arizona and involved the word ‘wetback’, you’d have a different opinion?
In response to another comment. See in context »@Matt: “Muslim immigrants to these countries have no right to demand that others respect their cultural taboos if they’re immigrating to a country whose laws they have decided in advance not to respect”
Do you really mean that or was it just to win an argument? Free speech does not mean you have the right to say anything to a group or a community….if you really believe in free speech, call a black man who is bigger than you a nigger on his face…or pass anti-semetic comments on a powerful jewish guy ….this is all free speech and you should have the right to say this BUT you won’t and you can’t…..because the laws of the country will prosecute you..will but its a free for all to call muslims anything they want, to disrespect, dishonor them, make them ashamed of themselves…..
“See below. People who commit violent acts in the name of religion are absolutely following their faith. It’s tolerance that’s the perversion of faith.”
You are right no religion including atheism(remember Stalin?)are without their hands in blood…so why didn’t you ask a rhetorical question to your christian, athiest, jew, hindu friends?
In response to another comment. See in context »You can’t be prosecuted for name-calling alone in the U.S. as far as I know. If you believe I am wrong please point me to the law you would be prosecuted under and I will check it out.
You may be scorned but not prosecuted.
In response to another comment. See in context »In these arguments about religion sanctioned violence, people advocating on the side of the religious always point to Hitler and Stalin as proof positive that atheism lends itself equally to violence as fundamentalism. I agree that it makes sense, but only if you don’t think about it for longer than it takes to spew it out in an argument. Stalin didn’t want to eliminate religion so much as he wanted to replace it with his own doctrine of sacrosanct principles. The tyranny exhibited under Stalin was a symptom of the same defect that is intrinsic to fundamentalism today and all through history, an extreme and unfettered devotion to an ideal to the point of justifying any means necessary to achieve its ends.
Even though Hitler and Stalin were both atheists, it was not that quality that engendered their evil tendencies…. As Richard Dawkins points out “they both had mustaches as well.”
In response to another comment. See in context »I agree that immigrants must play by the rules of their adoptive countries, but you leave out one important factor: many of these extremists are actually native-born citizens. Pillorying immigrants as the source of the problem is not exactly right. Try telling a Pakistani-British Salafist that he’s a foreigner in the UK, and he will tell you that he was born in the UK. Also, getting on the “immigrants need to integrate” bandwagon plays into the conservatives’ anti-immigrant rhetoric (especially in Europe).
In response to another comment. See in context »PS: A lot of them are converts. I’ve noticed that converts can be the most extreme.
In response to another comment. See in context »Payback would not be pope cartoons; it would be Jesus or God cartoons. News FLASH!!! There are PLENTY. Everyone’s fine. An opinion is just an opinion. If your Idol can’t stand up to criticism or humor, “he’s” not much of a god and you should find an idol with a pair and a sense of humor.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yowser, you see lit the fires on this non-facial stuff with the prohib on any human part. The comedy is that no one has been able to out think him for about 1400 hundred years. Giv’em time some sez, or lest they eat all yer pez…in acting like psychotic buffons…
What’s buffoonish about not liking what someone drew? I wouldn’t get violent about it,I just simply didn’t like it. That’s all.
From what I gather from the article, some did want to get violent about it, but not successful.
If this story is so important, then why don’t you report on the hundreds of incidents of teen violence because someone “disrespected me”, “look at my girl like that” etc. The violence is equally stupid.
My original point is that this is simply a non-story. I think you have a pretty big following and your in a pretty privileged position to get the stories out that no one is reporting on. Like the Jefferson County fraud case. This self-indulgent post only diminishes that.
Are you seriously trying to claim that Islamic fundamentalist violence is not a real and important story?
And comparing this kind of violence to the random violence of teenagers is preposterous. This kind of violence is organized and sanctioned by high-ranking religious authorities in multiple Middle Eastern states. This story is only remarkable because the victim happens to be a white European, on European soil; in the Middle East this sort of violent repression is totally commonplace. We didn’t even hear much in the states about a Lebanese fortune-teller sentenced to a beheading in Saudi Arabia recently:
http://womenagainstshariah.blogspot.com/2010/04/fortune-teller-faces-execution-in-saudi.html
That’s not some random teenager. That’s the sovereign government of Saudi Arabia. How about Afghanistan, where women shot and tortured for not wearing burqas or for trying to escape abusive husbands; disease there is common for women because idiotic custom prevents them from exposing their arms to male doctors for inoculations. It’s not like you don’t know this stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m95_ReSA5U&feature=player_embedded#!
This story in Sweden is part of a larger narrative about a violent religious extremism that is taking over the entire Muslim world. The reason we’re making a fuss about the Sweden story, or the Denmark story, or the Rushdie story, is that these incidents symbolize the problem of how the rest of the world suddenly has to deal with that extremism as it snowballs and expands beyond the Middle East.
By the way, can I just point out one thing? In response to a story about religious loonies attacking someone for printing unpopular speech, your strategy is to dictate to me what stories I should and should be writing about. Could you get it any less?
In response to another comment. See in context »As much as I appreciate all of your posts, and your response here with additional information that is clearly relevant to this post, all I can say is:
“Could you get it any less” would have sufficed.
Ignorance is bliss…
In response to another comment. See in context »WELL YOUR RIGHT MATT TABBY, ITS THE HIGH-RANKED RELIGEOUS OFFICIAL’S THAT ORGANIZE THIS PROTEST’S IN OTHER COUTNRY’S SUCH AS SAUDI ARABIA, WERE THE POEPLE ARE FREE TO PROTEST WHATEVER THEY WANT AND THE GOVERMENT WOUDL HAVE NO INTEREST IN USING HIGH-RANKER RELIGEOUS OFFICAIL’S TO SET UP SUCH PROTEST’S OF ‘BULLSHIT ISSUES’ LIKE DANESH CARTON’S TO MAKE THE CITIZENRY FEEL LIKE THEY OUR ACTUAL FREE POEPLE AND NOT ‘SUBJECTS’ OF ‘HIS ROYAL HIGH JERMAJESTY’ AKA, THE KING.
WELL THANK GOD THE USA IS’NT INVOLVED AT ALL WITH THE GOVERMENT OF SAUDI ARABIA BECASUE OTHER-WISE IT WOUDL BE LIKE, ‘WAIT, WHY ARE ARE ALLY’S USEING THEY’RE CLERRICS FOR WHIPPING UP THIS BULLSHIT PROTEST’S'? ITS MUCH EASYER JUST TO BLAME ALL POEPLE OF THE MUSLIM RACE.
In response to another comment. See in context »“exactly how much of a wuss does your God have to be, do you think, if he can’t take being picked on by a Swedish cartoonist?”
It’s not even an omnipotent mythological being we’re talking about. It’s a prophet. A man. For all this talk about how profane it is to worship anything but the “one true god” — a lot of Muslims seem to be worshiping Muhammad. And what’s all this bowing to a temple in Saudi Arabia about? Frankly I’m getting tired of all Abrahamic nonsense. Christianity and Islam seem to be the only faiths on the planet that take proselytizing as a religious responsibility.
Fuck proselytizing. Stop fishing for souls. If you want to beleive that Chicken McNuggets are a holy sacrament, I don’t give a shit. But leave me and others out of it and stop trying to recruit the world to your creed and world view.
And I hope each time these shit birds attack or threaten an artist, 100 pictures of the Prophet pops up.
The next bailout…for Afghan Opium growers…as disease hits their crops..?
“We are in the very last days of the harvest, maybe in two or three more days we’ll be done. We’ll have less output this year,” he told AFP. “I don’t know what the disease is but we’ll have little output (as a result).”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100513/wl_asia_afp/afghanistanunresteconomydrugsharvest;_ylt=At_mPB796_2Uo.nsObyBENnBF4l4;_ylu=X3oDMTNxa2RqNDloBGFzc2V0A2FmcC8yMDEwMDUxMy9hZmdoYW5pc3RhbnVucmVzdGVjb25vbXlkcnVnc2hhcnZlc3QEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM1BHBvcwM1BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDYWZnaGFuaXN0YW5v
There is nothing about soccer that is inherently violent or encourages violence. On the other hand:
“As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire;
so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.”
Or how about:
“When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”
“These are two adversaries who dispute about their Lord; then (as to) those who disbelieve, for them are cut out garments of fire, boiling water shall be poured over their heads… With it shall be melted what is in their bellies and (their) skins as well… And for them are whips of iron.”
Or in the Bible, how about Deuteronomy 17:
“If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.”
How about Leviticus 20:
“A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.”
Or Deuteronomy 13:
“Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.”
Should I go on? Both books are littered with this crap. Dehumanizing non-believers is a central element of both religions. I mean, seriously, have you ever read the Left Behind books? They’re freaking bloodbaths.
It may be that people who commit acts of religious violence are predisposed to violence, but let’s not kid ourselves — fundamentalist religion definitely helps them get there faster.
The religions of your examples would be Islam and Judaism, right? I can’t speak for them, but I’m far more familiar with Christianity: “Turn the other cheek” and “love your enemy” aren’t exactly calls to violence. Maybe there is something weird and violent in Revelations — I wouldn’t doubt it — but the overall message of the New Testament is one of peace and tolerance. Probably the coolest passage in the Bible is when Jesus prevents a crowd from stoning a prostitute while avoiding a logical trap.
(I always find myself being a Christian apologist, but I can’t stand the modern religion industry and the coupling of religion with politics or finance. My views are more in line with Gregory Boyd’s.)
Oh, well, I usually avoid religious discussions but couldn’t resist adding my two cents this time.
In response to another comment. See in context »How about Luke 19:27. This is Jesus on nonbelievers:
“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
In response to another comment. See in context »No, that passage has Jesus telling a parable about a king, “a hard man,” who wants to kill his subjects, not a general statement about unbelievers. That said, it’s not as though the history of Christianity is any less violent than another religion, or that Christians can’t turn to all the Old Testament stuff you already mentioned. Jesus himself though, you’ll have trouble finding incitements to violence.
In response to another comment. See in context »from Matthew 21:18-21
Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he [Jesus] hungered. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and he said unto it, “Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward and forever.” And presently the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying “How soon is the fig tree withered away!” Jesus answered and said unto them, “Verily I say unto you, if ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also is ye shall say unto the mountain, Be thou removed, and be cast into the sea; it shall be done.”
So super powers of removal possessed by the faithful may not constitute violence per say, but it depends on how you interpret the 21:21 verse (last bit). Dude, figs aren’t in season! Go get some other sustenance!
And there’s – at least – dire consequences for the non-believers. There’s some stuff in Luke and Acts taht supports this, even if J himself didn’t do the deed, he certainly encouraged it. Check out the rapture passages, or just ask an end-timer.
Do you think whipping moneylenders at the temple was a bit over top, or a justified act, since the religious location was defiled? [quick - cancel that bake sale!]
hmmm, there seems to be a lot in Matthew – what up with that? In Matthew 15:4, we find J in agreement with the law that would kill children who diss their parents:
For god commanded, saying “Honour thy father and mother”: and “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”
Yes, J then gives the virtues of respecting parents, but I’m just saying maybe death isn’t the cure for teen angst.
Then again, the Bible is all a story, just an allegory, and how can can we prove Jesus did any of this? heh
alleGORY?
In response to another comment. See in context »Talk about being a fundamentalist, Matt.
That single passage you’re citing from Luke 19 is one line out of a parable told by Jesus.
Like all of his parables it was metaphorical.
In response to another comment. See in context »“I usually avoid religious discussions”
cruss, I think that makes you the sanest commenter on this whole blog!
In response to another comment. See in context »When did Christians renounce the Old Testament? They still carry around that tired fossil with the “new” one, last time i checked.
This gets at a larger problem with religion, that is the unwillingness to renounce the profanely unethical simply because it comes from certain books or certain lips. As a former Mormon I’m practically an expert on this subject.
If the Bible sanctions slavery, rather than just saying “the Bible is wrong about slavery,” Christians will instead engage in some sort of twisted mental gymnastics/apologetics to explain these things away.
Did Jesus say some nice things? Sure (so did Buddha, by the way, and much earlier), but it’s the unwillingness to strike the ugly things from so-called “holy books” that gives solace and protection to nut jobs and fundamentalists.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think the Muslim world is still going through what the Christian was like awhile ago. ‘Religious Freedom’ meant the right to kill anybody who disagreed with you. As the Protestants splintered in many groups, nobody had the majorities to be the bully. There was also the early Caesar vs. church which allowed them to survive in Rome. The early Christians might have been persecuted but they didn’t pose enough of a threat to get the Romans worked up.
This separation made it possible to pry power away from the church. When religion and power are in the same hands we’re all fucked.
I’m not sympathetic at all to Christianity having been raised an orthodox Jew with a lot of history training. It just was wonderful for the west that the church lost power to run everything.
The US is still full of religious fervor but it never boils over like in the Middle East. An abortion clinic might be bombed and a doctor or two shot but it is not applauded by any sort of mass groups of loonies like the cartoon protesters. In the US, an open atheist had better give up political ambitions.
Personally, I feel that any religion that has to violently suppress criticism is implicitly admitting its inferiority and stupidity. (I hope this statement doesn’t lead to danger for all Steve’s in Colorado.)
Steve
“and a doctor or two shot”
Your comment brings to mind an article in the local newspaper just days before Scott Roeder was to be sentenced for the murder of Dr. Tiller here in Wichita. The wording struck me as bizarre at the time I read it:
“The shooting death of Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller may have contributed to a dramatic drop in the number of abortions performed in Kansas last year.”
Shooting death. For all we know, it could have been a hunting accident. Seems like it would have been safe to call it a murder at that point. The reporter really went out on a limb with “may have contributed to”. My favorite part – and I don’t have the direct quote for this one – was something about Tiller’s death possibly being a deterrent to other doctors from performing abortions.
I guess the reporter was just being a responsible journalist but it seems silly to have to tiptoe around the obvious that way.
In response to another comment. See in context »From Ignatius…the books do mean everything..they mold and form the minds that find them. And some are molded more than others.
I suppose one can surmise that is how one can arrive at ungodly acts that come from God’s teachings. It is called rationalization. Slave owners used it to justify slavery. Polygamous Mormons have their own set of rationalizations from their Book of Mormon. And some Muslims right now are finding book led faults to attack Mike’s
candid assertions. (Nothing new about these sort of attacks…) Their hate is so boring…deceitful, and just downright mean.
And he proved his point well by the attacks brought upon himself. It all goes to show that if you are going to hump a camel…you’ll need something to stand on…
Hmmm, I see that 15 min before my last note Mike put together something along the same lines of “Being led on by the book”. His “infiltration” book on Christian fundas kinda brings this out, although in ways it is a sad book by someone who grew up with little contact with the hoi polloi.
If one gets knocked around in the more common layers of life one runs up against that stuff and if you got some moxie it is nothing for you. As Mike was never exposed (it seems), it was all a new trip for him and he rowed his Pequod through it at an advanced age. But I digress…
So these fundas in x-tianity (we write x-mas, don’t we?) are usually harmless. Yea, yea, some go berserko…but in general we are not rife with car bombings by our own people here.
For multiple reasons that cause “berserkos” Islam has a real handle on this path for the moment. It is a dead end road that will peter out in time. (No, I don’t mean ending in St. Peter….oh gosh golly)
Really, Matt, you’re smarter than this. If somebody walks up to a black man and calls them the n-word, they’ll get their asses kicked. If this same cartoonist had made fun of the Holocaust, he’d go to jail. Both of these responses would have the approval of the relevant community leaders, and neither would elicit a word of snark from you.
I can’t stand people that blather on about free speech but refuse to live with the consequences. Newsflash: these things are insulting to a lot of people, some of whom don’t have the tact to turn up their nose and walk away. If that reality is too much for someone, they have no business making shock art.
And as for your religion screed. The problem isn’t believing in God, it’s believing that you’re somehow inherently better than another group of people. Hell, the new burqa ban in France is proof that people don’t need a God to be dogmatist assholes.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here; are you defending free speech or defending someone’s right to act like an insane person when someone says/does something another doesn’t like?
Because it seems to me like you’re defending people acting insane and behaving like infants.
And for the record, the n-word, when said to an individual, is an insult to an individual (with obvious historical connotations that denote inferiority, slavery, exploitation, etc), and could incite violence because it’s directed at an individual. It can’t be compared to making derisive claims against a historical figure, despite how much that historical figure is viewed or respected.
In response to another comment. See in context »Honestly, I would defend the entire sequence of events: Vilk’s right to make the cartoon, whoever’s right to head butt him, and the police’s right to arrest said whoever and charge him with assault. It’s all pretty open and shut, really.
The cartoonist in question was Muslim-baiting, and, when you start baiting a minority, you have no right to complain when someone takes said bait. Fuck, even G.G. Allin understood that. So why do today’s “shock artists” insist on being such pussies?
In response to another comment. See in context »So you defend the right to use violence against a cartoonist. Would you defend the Fatwah against Salman Rushdie? The burning of the Danish embassy in Iran? How about 9/11? Where do you draw the line? Is just a little violence okay, but not a lot?
In response to another comment. See in context »First off, get some perspective. We’re talking about a gang of hoodlums, not Al Qaeda. And I only defended the attack under the context of the assaulting party going to jail, thereby getting what they deserved. As long as physical assault remains illegal, and while the law is enforced, these things do not represent threats to free speech, but personal vendettas.
And, really, if he had said the same things about Judaism, he would be thrown in jail for the rest of his life. To go around worrying about the Muslim Menace when there are actual anti-speech laws on the books is, at best, hypocritical.
In response to another comment. See in context »From below “And, really, if he had said the same things about Judaism, he would be thrown in jail for the rest of his life. To go around worrying about the Muslim Menace when there are actual anti-speech laws on the books is, at best, hypocritical” I’m having a hard time believing there is such a law, but you seem pretty sureso…
In response to another comment. See in context »Please tell me what laws you are referring to. Are they federal laws? If it is a state law which state?
Matt,
Ain’t it funny when liberals laugh at Jesus and want to make fun of Christianity, but when you start poking fun at Muslim extremists they rush to the defense of Islam?
I think you may have just hit the boundaries of liberal ideology.
But overall, keep up the good work.
I agree Saudi Arabia is f’ed up and so is Afghanistan. If there is evidence that the threat against the cartoonist was a plot masterminded by either of those governments, then the Swedish government should do something about that.
The original story didn’t cite anything about Saudi and Afghanistan being involved.
That’s something you just added.
Given by the facts thats known so far, what is the difference between this and any other sort of violent crime? Crime is crime, it happens everywhere for all sort of benign or sick reasons.
I think the reasonable take on this whole cartoon thing is that the cartoonist needs to accept that what he drew will offend alot of people and no one is required to find what he drew humorous. On the flip side, violence against him isn’t tolerated.
The reason I brought up the teenager/young adult bit. Because based on the facts in the article. It is the same, unless you can do some work and figure out some sort of sovereign link. In both case people took being offended going overboard.
I’m not trying to dictate what your writing, But I read your blog for the financial/economic journalism, and found this most to be odd and not newsworthy. I’m sorry it came across that way.
In the Danish cartoon controversy religious leaders in virtually every major Islamic state either overtly or covertly encouraged demonstrations and acts of violence against the cartoonist and/or Danes. Iran severed all trade ties with Denmark; in Pakistan, a leading cleric named Maulana Yousef Qureshi offered a $1 million bounty for the cartoonist’s life. Embassies were burned in Damascus, Beirut, and Tehran, almost certainly with the assent of those countries’ governments. Whether or not a Muslim government orchestrated the attacks against this Swedish cartoonist is immaterial; it’s the general atmosphere of violence and intolerance of dissent cultivated by religious and political leaders in these countries that matters. Hell, a leading Saudi cleric even called for Mickey Mouse to be killed, for God’s sake. This is very different from random teenage violence. This is religious policy.
In response to another comment. See in context »I blame the OIC (the “Muslim UN”), too. They expressed huge outrage. Without the publicity, the offense would not have been so widespread. It begs the question: if you amplify the offense, are you not a willing participant in offending people? The OIC helped make this a big issue.
Another thing that is lost in all of this: the reason why Jyllands-Posten did the Muhammad cartoon feature in the first place. A children’s book author wanted to do a book about the life of Muhammad, but couldn’t find an illustrator willing to do the book. Imagine! A children’s book. How horrible!
I once wrote a letter to R. Crumb asking him to consider illustrating a book on the life of the Prophet of Islam — of course he’s an old man and probably doesn’t want to live out the rest of his days worrying that some asshole living among the riches of liberal Western society breaking into his French home with an ax.
In response to another comment. See in context »The general atmosphere of violence and intolerance of dissent cultivated by religious and political leaders in the United States and Western countries that matters.
How else do you explain our war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan? Have you forgotten what we did in Latin America?
Do you know which country was found liable for state sponsored terrorism in Nicaragua? Here’s a hint: it wasn’t a muslim country.
As for Saudi Arabia, it came into existence thanks to British support for Al-Saud and his partner in crime Al-Wahab. After the sun set on the British Empire, FDR took the helm as the god-father and protector of House of Saud, which explicitly requires protection of Wahabi brand of religious extremists that is Al-Qaeda.
And speaking of Al-Qaeda & Taliban, both were in cahoots with the U.S government either directly or through our allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Look up the history of the 90s and how the Clinton administration shielded Taliban after Iran threatened to attack them. Not to mention the whole Taliban-U.S-UNICOL-Oil nexus…
We spend almost half of entire world’s defense (offense) budget. Accusing muslims for the violent acts of extremists that we actively nurtured and still do (see Saudi Arabia) only shows that you have gone off the deep end on this topic. Applying your ridiculous logic to the violence perpetrated by the U.S government would mean that all Americans are war criminals. After all, we did reelect George Bush notwithstanding Iraq war crimes and Reagan/Bush I even though we knew about Nicaragua.
In response to another comment. See in context »You have quite a bizarre and contorted interpretation of history with only a hint of truth. Please feel free to move to the Middle East and join the Jihad. I fear people like you having influence in our government more than some right wing warmonger, primarily due to the fact you are a persistant apologist that probably would welcome the religious fanatics in Iran getting nuclear weapons. Then when these wackos blow up Israel, I imagine your revisionist history will say it was our fault for not being tolerant enough. I am sure you would be a model citizen in a new caliphate.
In response to another comment. See in context »Your response is typical of an ignoramus American. When you can’t come up with an argument just throw in the “why don’t you move” juvenile retort.
As for the facts, read Chalmers Johnson’s trilogy on the blood-stained hand of the U.S empire. Johnson was a CIA consultant for decades during the Cold War and his scholarship on the U.S role in propping up Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Taliban is impeccable.
And Israel is an apartheid state that has been perpetrating an ethnic cleansing on native population from the day of its birth. Read the Goldstone report on Israeli war crimes.
The rest of your rent is nothing but typical neocon fear-mongering.
In response to another comment. See in context »The Nerd says that the destruction of the Danish Embassy in Damascus was allowed by the colonels in the sunglasses and the Baathist government as a warning to the U. S. “See these Hell Hounds? This is what happens when we are not around to control them.” ( http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8036&IBLOCK_ID=35 )
Damascus was a pretty big target in the neoconservatives gun-sights, so it makes sense to me. I sure don’t think Bashar al-Assad gives a damn about some pathetic Danish cartoons.
Now, as to the specific charge here. Basically when people have been crushed for years, they form violent gangs. It ends up being the only way to get respect. If you deface one of their gang tags deliberately to show a lack of respect, well, expect violent retaliation.
It’s not right, of course. It’s just the way of things. As neoliberalism runs it’s course in the United States, expect Christian gang violence. Heck, we are already seeing it (the gang was called a militia) and things haven’t yet gotten as bad as they are going to.
Or maybe I should go down to the Crip section of town and start painting over their gang tags?
Yeah, yeah, there are primitive superstitious beliefs relating to these particular Muslim gang tags… but that’s not what’s causing the violent retaliation.
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt,
I think you are intentionally missing the larger point to find the hot-headed idiot that establishes your point but not THE point. The Danish cartoons were not intended as an expression of free speech but were cloaked under the guise of free speech. The initial reaction of the muslims was the requested retraction or explanation by a set of clergy that was offended by the cartoons. They were ignored along with the ambassador accompanying them. The Swedish cartoonist’s actions were performed under a backdrop of nationalized bigotry regarding the minarets. 57% of the people voted to ban them in Sweden. If we are going to argue about freedom of expression and its espousal by the west and demand it is accepted by the muslim immigrants, then the reverse ought to be true and expected. Hence, your outrage should also be equally directed at the banning of head scarves in France or minarets in Sweden.
It’s as if you were at an archaeological dig, uncovered the village idiot and reconstructed society around the shrillest, most idiotic individual. You are now conflating muslims with the actions of the angry minority. It would be like a muslim assuming you (and all Americans) were precisely like Sara Palin or like George Bush. Ignorant and arrogant.
You selectively quoted parts of the Quran to make a flawed statement. Here is a more versed explanation of the Quran/Islam and violence: http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/bigotry-toward-muslims-and-anti-arab.html
If you have read the Quran, then you would recognize that it also insists that man be kind not just to man but to their environment and animals.
In the end, someone decides to “push the button” of an entire people. Not for art or political expression. Just to inflame. That is their prerogative. If they choose to intentionally overlook the sensitivities of an entire people for some personal bigoted pleasure to get a rise out of people and then say look at them, YOU miss the point. If YOU said something like that about black americans right now in a public forum, do you think you’d have a job at Rolling Stone? Why shouldn’t you? Why did Imus have to apologize and transiently lose his job? If you made fun of the holocaust? If you started making jokes about “wetbacks”? Freedom of expression is fine, but it can’t be selectively applied and then considered wrong for other cultures and with other sensitivities.
Nobody is defending the actions of fringe. First, they aren’t IN america.
Finally, your comment about intolerance is disingenuous. Here is the United States and their “intolerance” to weed out Mexican illegal immigrants. The people who clean houses, pick fruit and do jobs nobody wants for less money than anyone would accept. This is not a muslim phenomenon, this is a world phenomenon. Europe is openly racist towards muslims and immigrants. Heck, even now you can here them making monkey noises to heckle black players on the soccer field.
The selective outrage is misplaced and the “intolerance” is not unique to the muslim world. Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are not the “muslim world”. They contain the most extreme faction of it. Indonesia, Jordan, Egypt, are probably far more representative than those you’ve focused on.
In response to another comment. See in context »When Muslims integrate into their host societies and respect the laws therein, I would accept them building Minarets or wearing headscarves.
The problem with Muslim immigrants is they tend to seclude themselves from their host society, then do everything they can to antagonize their host country and its people. Just look at what’s going on in the UK and France. In France, there are “NO-GO” zones where police and firefighting personel refuse to go for fear of their safety. These “NO-GO” zones are predominantly Muslim areas. They do not respect host country laws (and seek to establish sharia law) and they do not respect the people’s of those countries.
Sorry but as far as I’m concerned Muslims can shove it if they don’t like bans against Headscarves, Minarets, or Honor Killings. They don’t respect us, why should we respect them?
In response to another comment. See in context »Certainly, in the 21st century, it is morally wrong not to sneer at and mock any and ALL religions.
I don’t think it’s either right or very productive to blame religion for people’s bad behavior. When you go around saying that religion is the problem, you effectively remove the onus of responsibility from the shoulders of people who deserve to be censured, punished, made to see the error of their ways, held up an an example of how not to behave in a civilized society, etc. And sure, you can find all kinds of crazy things in the Bible and the Koran if you go looking for them, but–and really, this should go without saying–the vast majority people who profess faith in one of the “Big Three” are regular, non-violent folks who find the idea of hurting or killing others in the name of their faith crazy and offensive.
I don’t think this is a non-story, by the way. It’s terrible that people literally risk their lives when they publicly offend (a very small subset of) religious fundamentalists, but ultimately it’s crazy assholes that are the problem, not the religion they claim to follow.
I am a muslim and an Arab and can tell you this. Those who are angry that someone ‘insulted’ mohammed, should be angry with themselves first. They are the ones who believe that he was a child rapist (they DO believe that he married a 6 year old), that he believes in killing apostates, that he believed in spreading Islam via violence (after his death a giant brutal empire was built by the hands of those who fought against mohammed for 20 years). The Danish cartoonist only drew the picture based on what muslims have said about mohammed 100 years after his death and still say today.
The quran emphasises freedom of religion and freedom of expression in a LOT of verses (I will be more than happy to provide you with a list), and when a muslim reformer comes out and shows them the verses they start calling him/her an apostate and threaten his/her life or even kill them (example: Farag Foda).
If you want to know what brought back, in our days, teachings that were established during the age of the empire 100 years after mohammed’s death, then read the history of the Saudi kingdom (the first, the second and the current). Read about the alliance between them and the Wahabis. With petro-$ they control 99.9% of all mosques, schools, media, goverments…etc. Hell, they even control mosques inside the US and Europe. I would LOVE to see a piece about the Saudi and Wahabi lobby inside the US that manage to get lies like this in the media:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/190350
To the Saudis Al-Qaeda is only a wahabi faction gone rogue, just like the republicans would consider the tea baggers.
Like their PLF (protestant lunatic fringe) counterparts, these idiots are in a desperate (and I might add, losing) battle with modernity. They see the writing on the wall, and, as revelations says: “The Devil sends the beast with wrath for he knows the time is short.”
Indeed it is, brethren, indeed it is. Shorter than you think. It’s one of those good news, bad news scenarios.
The good news (for them anyway) is they’re going to get their precious apocalypse; the bad news is there won’t be any magical zombie rabbi or hidden imam coming out of the sky on a white horse to save them.
Like Carlin said, “The very idea that you can set off a bomb in a marketplace and kill several hundred people is exciting and stimulating and I see it as a form of entertainment…you have to be realistic about terrorism. Certain groups of people, certain groups, Muslim fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalists, and just plain guys from Montana, are going to continue to make life in this country very interesting for a long, long time.”
Pass the popcorn please.
Danish Cartoon Controversy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
Swedish Cartoon Controversy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Vilks_Muhammad_drawings_controversy
According to your argument, this is rooted as a strong religious reaction causing everyone to react violently to these cartoons drawings. If thats the case, why was there a more tempered reaction to the Swedish cartoons vs. the Danish ones?
It’s possible politicians are making political hay about this cause its good politics to and its easy to. I mean, hell it’s easier to declare war on Mickey Mouse, then say deal with the high underemployment situation among young people in Saudi Arabia. That’s a much harder and politically risky problem to solve.
Notice, the Swedish cartoon controversy happened a year and a half after the Danish one. Is it suddenly a little less outrageous?
This is not religious policy, It’s called politics, in its most ugliest form.
In Europe and US and the rest of the civilized world, there is a marriage between politics and money. Matt has done a WONDERFUL job exposing it. In the countries still living in the middle-ages, the marriage is between religion and politics is as strong as ever. The first and second Saudi states failed because the rest of the Arab/Muslim world rejected them (Egypt destroyed them the first time). They decided to do it differently in the third one. This time they funneled a lot of money into Egypt and formed the ‘muslim brotherhood’ to be the ‘moderate’ mouth piece of Wahabis in the rest of the Arab world. Just look at Egypt in the early 20’s and compare it to now. Today if you poll the young muslims you will find that the vast majority of them believe that killing apostates is part of Islam!!! As for question about timing, yes I agree with you it’s the political side that decides to make emphasis on an issue and the rest of people follow like sheep. How is that any different from what you see here in the US with main stream media?
In response to another comment. See in context »Most muslims only get angry when the clerics tell them so. They have been trained to be that way.
I agree completely. Nasser’s (sp?) socialist regime was so heavy-handed, other political actors raided the Mosques and politicized it because it was the only relatively open forum. Egypt is still in a state of emergency since what the 1970s. The Gulf states took droves of Egyptian professions who took their Wahhabi indoctrination back to Egypt etc.
This is also a Marriage between Politics and Money as well. Saudi’s would not even have one bit of influence if it was for their oil wealth.
“Most muslims only get angry when the clerics tell them so” — I would say this for most Muslim who patronize political active clerics do.
I think most Muslims go about their day and think this Cartoonist is an asshole. Empirically this has to be true, otherwise the guy would have been dead already. The End.
In response to another comment. See in context »The issue with these attacks is that the violence is so inbred and pervasive as to beget a permanent hate atmosphere. For example, in Europe, there are many cases of liberal leaning Imans who get their throats cut. The ultimate put down of free speech. Sad…but true.
I love the Shoedini commercial! God, Gilbert Gottfried will do anything for a buck!
I see Rahman-Noodle is making veiled threats. Well, well, well….he must think he and his ilk are the cat’s meow….cute and stupid, one can guess, eh?
(Sorry for repost. I did it in reply by mistake)
Here is how to spot a Wahabist even if he/she claims to be ‘moderate’. I encourage you to ask members of MSA (Muslim Student Association), and CAIR these questions. Don’t pretend to ‘understand where they come from’.
1) Is there a punishment for apostates, or is it a crime?
2) Would you support religious preaching of any religion in a ‘muslim’ country?
3) Would you respect your daughter’s choice in dressing in any way she prefers?
4) Would you vote for a non-muslim running for the office of presidency in a Muslim country?
I bet no less than 65% of Muslims will disappoint if they answer with honesty. This is not about being racist or a bigot, but truly these people need serious counseling to solve that deadly contradiction between what they think Islam is about and the values of freedom and democracy. Don’t give in to the political correctness bullshit.
Finally, though reformers in the ‘Muslim’ world don’t ask you to provide money and/or support, the least you could do is NOT support regimes in Saudi, Egypt and Pakistan.
On a lighter side: Write letters to Viacom and tell them that you are offended by the showing or mention of kittens and puppies because it’s against your religious belief and it hurts your feelings. maybe use a threat of some kind on some internet site
You thought this was about religion? Silly, it’s about power and how to gain it, Stalin-style. Religion is just an added Ponzi-scheme (the first…plus if you look at it that way it just had to create wars to keep the scheme going) that makes it all go-go for those on the way up…just how did the priesthood develop? Or, better yet, why? A fall man was needed for those climbing…and an aggrandizer for those in power, plus someone who spoke well to the masses in order to control them…
You’re not wrong, but you’re oversimplifying this situation, Matt. I agree that religious censorship is fucked up and stupid, and the Puritanical intolerance that was displayed in the case of the cartoons is just depressingly pervasive in a lot of the Middle East. Politicians and ambitious men exploit it cynically there just like the Robertsons and Falwells of America here.
But you need to look at the response to the cartoon within the larger context of the European and American relationship to the Middle East and Middle Eastern immigration. I mean, we have two ongoing wars in predominantly Muslim countries, we’re rounding up and detaining Middle Eastern Muslims and vanishing them into black sites and mowing them down with Blackhawks and Predator Drones, and that’s not even to mention our blinkered and unconditional support for the Israeli government and their wars on other ME countries. In Europe, while certainly not every country supported our invasions, there is a tremendous amount of prejudice against Middle Eastern immigrants that is actually legislated in the form of restrictions on religious freedom–like the recent Swiss law banning minarets or the ban on the hijab in French schools (the fact that it was ostensibly about all religious symbols is bunk–e.g., it only banned “large crosses” but small crosses are fine). So to make the events surrounding the cartoon only about Islamic intolerance is overly-reductive and only tells one side of a much more complicated story.
Man, Vortex is spot on the money here.
Matt, I’ve been reading you for quite some time now and really am impressed with your wit and your cynical attitude about American politics and finance.
So I’m puzzled as to why you think this is part of the “larger narrative about a violent religious extremism that is taking over the entire Muslim world”. As far as I can tell, violent religious extremism isn’t taking over in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Nigeria, or Turkey (4 out of the 6 top Muslim countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_majority_countries).
So why is it “taking over” in more of the Arab (as opposed to Muslim) countries + Iran? It’s pretty obvious, I think. It’s the oil, duh. The US & West want it, and we have made some deals with some sketchy leaders who use unsavory tactics to repress their populations. Those leaders then try to blame all of their problems on the West for political reasons, and get the religious leaders to echo the claims.
Come on – we’ve been bombing the crap out of many of those countries, assassinating their leaders, etc. The “extremists” are probably just fed up with the West’s killing and hypocrisy, along with the masses of unemployed hoodlums who believe what their imams tell them.
Then when the West insults their beliefs, it’s like kicking frigging sand in their faces and telling them to like it.
So this really has nothing to do with “how big a wuss your God” is. As correctly pointed out above, Mohammed isn’t a God. Muslims believe in the same God as Christians and Jews. If you truly do have Muslim friends, I invite you to ask them to give you a good explanation – I have learned a lot from well-educated non-extremist Muslims. If you don’t have any, I invite you to go find some – it is eye-opening.
Just to be clear, I’m not justifying any of the actions of the extremists, just trying to see if we all can understand where they are coming from. As Vortex says, this is just gang violence. It doesn’t make it right, but hopefully you can see my point that this is a bigger issue than religion.
Think of it this way – imagine the US continues to go down the tubes as the government continues to give the countries wealth to their friends in high places (esp. bankers and defense cos), and then China becomes the new world financial power. How do you think the Tea Partiers will react if the Chinese start drawing cartoons of the Marlboro Man getting sodomized by Bruce Lee? (OK I’m not great at analogies, but you get my drift.
)
Matt – would love to hear your reply…
Oh, and there is another little issue here. Back during the Cold War, any time a predominantly Muslim country started to go “pink” (as in Communist/Socialist or at all pro-worker or anti-global capitalist) the CIA would get to work to “fix” the situation. Usually, the fix involved supporting either on purpose or through grotesque CIA incompetence, the nuttiest religious fringe types we could find.
Whether it was in overthrowing Mossadegh in Iran or creating Al Quaeda(!) to fight the Soviets, or supporting Wahabi Islam in Saudi Arabia, the US could be counted on to use religious extremism to help suppress leftist revolution in these countries. Heck, the most recent War we started in the Middle East was to remove the secular Baathist leader of Iraq in order to give the religious nutters an opening to take over.
The truth is that a big issue they are currently having in Iran is that “girls they want to have fun” ( http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Extramarital-sex-fuels-earthquakes-Senior-Iran-cleric/articleshow/5824736.cms )
However, the US will figure out a way to toss them back into the hands of the dour, bearded men in black, mark my words. We’re usually the best friends radical Islam ever had, just ask Aamir the Afghani, whose entire family was wiped out in an American drone attack.
Funny story, the operator was supposed to hit the next village over, but, oh well…
In response to another comment. See in context »My understanding is that the outrage of some Muslims over the cartoons is a “last straw” kind of thing. They’ve been disrespected and misunderstood for so long and in so many ways, this kind of dis, while small when isolated, is viewed as typical of the West’s fundamental ignorance of Islam. Your confusion of the religion’s prophet with its god is emblematic of this, as is the idea that violent extremism is taking over the Muslim world. There are over a billion Muslims in the world; if violent extremism were taking it over we’d be seeing a lot worse effects. This kind of over-reaction gets attention because it conforms to the West’s stereotypes of Muslims as a bunch of crazies. When 10000 Egyptians demonstrate against Islamic extremism it gets no coverage, but when one nutball freaks out over a cartoon suddenly CNN is interested.
“They’ve been disrespected and misunderstood for so long and in so many ways, this kind of dis, while small when isolated, is viewed as typical of the West’s fundamental ignorance of Islam. Your confusion of the religion’s prophet with its god is emblematic of this, as is the idea that violent extremism is taking over the Muslim world.”
So Muslims are committing violent, extreme acts because the West thinks that violent extremism is taking over the Muslim world. What a pickle.
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh give me a break, this “last straw” in countries such as Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, and the UK? Ooh yeah, such draconian societies, surely worse than Sudan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia et al. What they’re really outraged over is that many in the west won’t tolerate their intolerance; and give up the rights of free speech and free thought to kow-tow to a bunch of medievalists.
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt,
In light of the bullshit censorship of the now perceived South Park Pussies, I appreciate you writing about this. You responses are even better.
The lunacy, crimes and theft caused most religions need to be brought to light and regularly ridiculed when they try to impede our rights to free speach/expression.
Bravo
Since we are quoting scripture.
The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead man, and every living thing in the sea died.
ST. JOHN OF PATMOS (A-D. 81-96), Rev 16:3
I’ve been on Patmos and in the cave of St. John. If you like to quote him you should see the cave, way high up…and the view it has out of the harbor ringed by mountains and under a full moon…it is intense. If I stayed there long enough I would have had visions too…the heat, the light, the sea…when I was there I was the only one. The Greeks would go there for Easter. I had to see it to try and understand Revelations…
In response to another comment. See in context »This has certainly brought out the Zombies…Matt hit the nail on the head. Otherwise, so much rationalization would not be forthcoming….
BTW, have any Muslim women commented? Could have missed them…
Even a transgendered Muslim would be ok…
Hey Matt,
Do me a favor and give me a name or two of recent “Islamic extremists” who, like George Bush, murdered a million people plus because “God told me to”.
Thanks
Not to defend Bush or anything, but Bush didn’t kill the million without the help of wahabists. In fact, the war wouldn’t have happened without their help (9/11). Not sure congress and the public would have passed a massive assault on two countries at once without it.
Besides the intellectual murder of citizens of many Muslim and non-Muslim countries. Something that Bush never did or would have never been able to do.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Bush didn’t kill the million without the help of wahabists. In fact, the war wouldn’t have happened without their help (9/11). Not sure congress and the public would have passed a massive assault on two countries at once without it.”
…except that Iraq wasn’t part of 9/11. Sadly, Bush and many of those who agreed with the wars were manipulated by religion to support the attacks.
In response to another comment. See in context »Violence, mayhem, murder, is older than religion, older than Cain and Abel, older than man. It is humanity’s heritage from the dynamic between the wolf and the lamb, between the predator and its prey, between the victimizer and its victim. Murder, separation, the sense of me versus ‘the other’, is now so firmly established in the mind that it is inherent in being human.
Also firmly established in the mind is the projection and externalization of violence/separation onto ‘other’ parts of reality, hence a pronounced tendency of people to fight fat, fight salt, fight obesity, fight cancer, fight AIDS, fight ‘them’ over ‘there’, fight terrorism, fight communism, fight capitalism, fight global warming, fight Asian carp, fight the sun, fight the fight, fight, fight, fight.
PEACE and desist.
Whoa, whoa…the poor misunderstood street theater types are out again! Like Muslims understand x-tianity? Try again! And here’s a take from Algeria…I had come up from Quagadougou and would be going south again but I was in the Hogar in Southern Algeria and was at the Assekrem, a Catholic site. French nuns and monks keep it going. Now and then they are
killed by a spontaneous show of…”joy” from their Muslim friends. And there I met a slave held by…Muslims…yup, he as black and the French were trying to get him to leave but he had been in slavery since a baby. It would be a jump into the unknown. He was not in chains or anything but was owned…I think he would finally leave as I read his face. He was about 18. Anyway, this is some good work of Catholicism…