The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Thus, I think that there is no issue of "allowing" them to remain regressive. They don't need our permission, and we can only stop it by: (a) some kind of policy of gradual change with continuing, "constructive engagement" -- like the policy the GOP and RR claimed it pursued with South Africa; or (b) invading the nation, subduing the people, changing the laws, and enforcing compliance for generations.

Not such a good example for your argument.

The GOP only claimed it was following that policy. And we didn't invade. And yet, the regression in South Africa ended, and the world's confrontational approach did the trick.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(a) In this country, they are held to the same standards as everyone else. No riots here.

Ever hear of a little book called "the Satanic Verses"? Rushdie didn't need just to avoid Muslim countries after that; he was under heavy security everywhere, including here.

And remember the movie "Mohammad, Messenger of God"? Very respectful (though a piece of shit from an artistic perspective, I suspect), but because it occasionally showed the Prophet's hand -- not even his whole body or face, just a hand -- there were not just riots, but hostage-takings.

That was almost 30 years ago. How many movies can you think of since then have portrayed Mohammad in a negative light, or used his image in a way that a Muslim would regard as blasphemous?

Compare that to treatments of Christ in movies (and I don't mean Mel Gibson's snuff film).

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Funnily, I think the Iranian response - to have a contest for Holocaust-denying cartoons - is the best one yet. http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/...704032,00.html . Go for it.

When all else fails, blame the Jews.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Ever hear of a little book called "the Satanic Verses"? Rushdie didn't need just to avoid Muslim countries after that; he was under heavy security everywhere, including here.

And remember the movie "Mohammad, Messenger of God"? Very respectful (though a piece of shit from an artistic perspective, I suspect), but because it occasionally showed the Prophet's hand -- not even his whole body or face, just a hand -- there were not just riots, but hostage-takings.

That was almost 30 years ago. How many movies can you think of since then have portrayed Mohammad in a negative light, or used his image in a way that a Muslim would regard as blasphemous?

Compare that to treatments of Christ in movies (and I don't mean Mel Gibson's snuff film).

Put another way, how many papers/web sites are afraid to publish/host the Danish cartoons?

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
When all else fails, blame the Jews.

But it implicitly accepts our way of thinking, and that is a big step for Iran.

[Diane_Keaton]

Shouldn't we be changing the subject line? Do we know if RT is having fun yet?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Sorry, S.A.M. You are way out of line and are pretty much grabbing for air, here.

I may very well be wrong, but I am not out of any line. Just recalling my impressions from that time. Perhaps I drew a false impression from your calm, measured debating style.

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I never mentioned ANYTHING about my personal beliefs about the Christian symbol artwork. In our country, there was a debate about whether they were "art" (mostly, and importantly, in the context of whether our taxpayers money should be used for it.) Many found their artistic nature questionable and some were offended. As someone who finds Goetse hilarious, I was certainly not offended by them. In fact, I saw the pee one and, in context, thought it conveyed a powerful message that was personal to the artist. You must be confusing my lambasting of the orange drapes. Because I like my art, and especially my photography, extreme, and more than likely, I'll find it artistic. From pee crosses to gay erotica ala Mapplethorpe.

Maybe it was the drapes.

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
So leave me out of your schtick please. I am a consistent social liberal and massive defender of freedom of speech. (I just didn't like the drapes).

Hey -- I have freedom of expression too! Diane Keaton! Diane Keaton! Diane Keaton!! :dance2:

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
When all else fails, blame the Jews.

That does seem to be a recurring theme.

It will be interesting to see how much play those cartoons get in the same papers that published the Mohammed cartoons. The issue may be a little different, because one presumes no government will ban them (although Germany -- for one -- has pretty strong laws against anti-Semitic "hate speech").

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The GOP only claimed it was following that policy. And we didn't invade.

Didn't mean to imply otherwise. I understand that our government's "constructive engagement" with SA was actually an anti-communist partnership -- for the sake of which our government was willing to keep quiet about the racism and oppression of the black and colored majority.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And yet, the regression in South Africa ended, and the world's confrontational approach did the trick.

I know, but SA was just one country which was just about completely isolated by the end. I'm not sure the same approach will work (or is the best choice) for dealing with a population of what, 20-33% of the world (?), spread throughout dozens of countries. Another problem is that many of those countries hold a vital resource that we cannot presently afford to boycott.

Ultimately, their change will come from within if it comes. The hard question is what way to best hurry it along without screwing up our ongoing vital interests in dealing with those countries (anti-terrorism, oil, Mid-East peace, etc.)

S_A_M

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by LessinSF
But it implicitly accepts our way of thinking, and that is a big step for Iran.

Bullshit. They've never thought that all religions should be beyond such ridicule. Just theirs. (And particularly not Judaism.)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Compare that to treatments of Christ in movies (and I don't mean Mel Gibson's snuff film).

Classic line.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
:dance2:

S_A_M

What the hell is that?

[Fish Sunday Thinker]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Exactly. I see this as a wonderful needed example of the danger of even "moderate" Islam.......................

I am a "moderate" Muslim attorney myself, but I have to admit that I am not in the least bothered or insulted by these cartoons, if for no other reason than that I am sure that the prophet Muhammed himself would not care in the least about something so utterly trivial as this so called controversey. The Prophet was insulted and mistreated many times during his lifetime and yet he refrained from acting aggressively or with offense. Those who Islam and study the hadiths would understand this.

Rather, when faced with defilers of his person or Islam, he prayed to Allah for them, to show them the path to Allah.

The Prophetwas a man of foregiveness with a beautiful soul whose mission on Earth was to bring the spirit of Allah to the believers. He would have no time for petty boycotting of Danish products or mistreatment of the Danish people. In the spirit of his message, I am urging all of my friends, Muslims and non-believers alike, to put aside the divisive and unproductive hate and seek to model themselves in the ways of the Prophet, with beautiful, compassionate, peace loving behavior. All of us here and in our personal lives should be beacons to the rest of the world community to honor the Prophet and the message of Allah.

Also, by the way, some of you also don't know much about Islam either because Jesus is also considered an honored Prophet by the Qu'ran.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Fish Sunday Thinker Also, by the way, some of you also don't know much about Islam either because Jesus is also considered an honored Prophet by the Qu'ran.

I think you are wrong on this. I certainly knew that Jesus was considered a prophet in the Koran and I think most of the people who posted on this subject knew that.

Originally posted by Fish Sunday Thinker


I am urging all of my friends, Muslims and non-believers alike, to put aside the divisive and unproductive hate and seek to model themselves in the ways of the Prophet, with beautiful, compassionate, peace loving behavior. All of us here and in our personal lives should be beacons to the rest of the world community to honor the Prophet and the message of Allah.

I appreciate your tolerance, and I wish all muslims thought as you did (just as I wish all Christians thought as I do). I think in this case the problem is mainly the Muslim community. The only thing that really offends me is people who get offended. When the movie the Last Temptation of Christ came out, or the Christ in Urine or the Mary with Feces, many Christians were offended. I am a Christian, but I strongly believe that the problem was created by the offended Christians and not the artists or Martin Scocesse. When Mel Gibsons movie "the Passion" came out many Jews and some other people were offended. They were the problem in that case, not Mel Gibson or his Movie. In this situation, and in the Salman Rushdie situation, the Muslims that were and are offended are the problem. I appreciate the fact that you are encouraging your fellow muslims not react to these cartoons in a negative way.

In an open pluralistic society people are always going to do stuff that other people consider offensive, blasphemous or sacrilegeous. A society were people don't do stuff that other people consider offensive, is a society I hope I never live in. The only society I want to live in is a society where people feel compelled to speak their minds, and aren't afriad to offend anyone. Therefore, in my mind, the only solution to this kind of problem with the cartoons is for people to learn not to react in a violent or hostile way when they get offended, but to instead enter the national dialogue themselves and express their views on the subject.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
What the hell is that?

Just go to the collection of smilies, and you can order one of your very own.

:dance2: :bang:

S_A_M