We are all Danes now.

[TalkingDog]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/02/05/we_are_all_danes_now/

My criteria for deciding whether something is biased or not is whether the idea applies across the board. If you tell a joke with a female as the butt of the joke, is it still funny with a male in the same situation? If not, the joke is biased (sexist, if you will).

We would not and do not accept this type of behaviour from any other religious sect, especially Christians, and we should not accept it from fundamentalist, radical Muslims.


snip:
HINDUS CONSIDER it sacrilegious to eat meat from cows, so when a Danish supermarket ran a sale on beef and veal last fall, Hindus everywhere reacted with outrage. India recalled its ambassador to Copenhagen, and Danish flags were burned in Calcutta, Bombay, and Delhi. A Hindu mob in Sri Lanka severely beat two employees of a Danish-owned firm, and demonstrators in Nepal chanted: ''War on Denmark! Death to Denmark!"In many places, shops selling Dansk china or Lego toys were attacked by rioters, and two Danish embassies were firebombed.

It didn't happen, of course. Hindus may consider it odious to use cows as food, but they do not resort to boycotts, threats, and violence when non-Hindus eat hamburger or steak. They do not demand that everyone abide by the strictures of Hinduism and avoid words and deeds that Hindus might find upsetting. The same is true of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Mormons: They don't lash out in violence when their religious sensibilities are offended. They certainly don't expect their beliefs to be immune from criticism, mockery, or dissent.

[MrModerate]

1. I wonder whether the demonstraters/firebombers realize . . .

What discredit this showers on Islam. Or whether they care. If I remember my comparative religion classes (now many years in the past), as an infidel, my opinion of the Prophet is irrelevant, and cannot (by definition) be blasphemous. I'm sure the same applies to Danish (and French, etc.) newspaper editors.

[bemildred]

2. This is drivel. This fellow is stunningly ignorant.

Religious violence has a long and illustrious history, anywhere in the world you care to go, and the Muslims are mere copy cats in that regard.

One example among an infinite sea of them:

2002 Gujarat violence


The riots were triggered on February 27, 2002 by an attack on a passenger train, the Sabarmati Express, passing through the town of Godhra. The train was forcibly stopped at Signal Falia near Godhra Junction. Ladies Coach S6 bore the brunt of mob attack. In the midst of attack, Coach S6 caught fire killing 59 passangers, most of whom were women and children. The news of 59 deaths lead to a wave of riots.

Many train passengers were Hindu activists and pilgrims called Kar Sevaks returning from a disputed religious site in Ayodhya. The train was allegedly set to fire by Muslim extremists. Hindu sympathisers often cite this as the primary provocation or the "first use" of violence. However, Muslim sympathisers allege that it was the hindus riding the train who were the first to provoke standers-by Muslims in Godhra railway station by shouting hindu-religous slogans like "Jai Shri Ram" (Victory of Shri Ram).

Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav appointed Justice Banerjee to investigate the cause of fire. On the eve of election in Railway Minister's Native State Bihar, Justice Banerjee submitted an interim report concluding that the fire and attack are two seperate events. Fire was likely started from within the train, and not by a mob gathered outside the train <[1>]. This interim report and Bin Laden Clone were used in Bihar Election to attract muslim votes. <[2>] <[3>].Interim Report's credibilty is questioned due to timing of it's release and subsequent use in election campaigning <[4>]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence

[TallahasseeGrannie]

4. Truly very few of us

here in this country, and I would assume on DU, can have a clear understanding of the complexities of these cultural issues. It is a world very different from our own.

The bit of reading I have done has convinced me that I know NOTHING.

[azurnoir]

7. These "cartoons"

were published last September. I'm curious about the 4 month lag in "outrage", not this does not excuse the violence in the ME, but....
Since when do we trust MSM to tell the whole story?
It seems almost convenient that these riots (that have stirred up anti Islamic sentiments throughout the western world) would come at the same time Iran decides to restart uranium enrichment and * co just might be revving to kill alot more Muslims.


Just sayin' is all

[calmblueocean]

3. My feelings as well.

There is a mainstream movement of Islam in the Middle East that needs to come to terms with modernity, with free speech, with tolerance. I've never felt that bombing or invading them is the way to do that -- our movies, music, and culture do a better job of changing young people's minds than our bombs do -- but I'm under no illusions about them. To the extent they are unwilling to accept others' freedom, they are dangerous, both to the larger world and to their own countrymen and women. Where are the pro-free speech Muslim protestors? Probably all too scared of their violent relations to come out and make a stand.

[donco6]

5. I.e. Rushdie.

nuff said.

[Jim__]

6. Yes, but ...

From another thread on DU (here): Møller repeated his statement that the Danish government did not print the newspapers and that those who committed blasphemy were breaking Danish law and would be prosecuted.

I don't at all support the Danish government if they prosecute the cartoonists.

[neoblues]

8. True enough...

However, while it's true that it has been awhile since Christians lashed out with direct violence (such as the Crusades)(unless you consider Bush's accidental description of the invasion of IRAQ as a Crusade; but we all know it was as much for other reasons as any secret religious motivation). Anyway, there are some (more than a few) who claim the mantle of Christ as their own, who instantly lash out at least provocation with "verbal" violence (which often calls for physical violence in some way), such as Pat Roberts (and various other RR leaders and followers). The point being that Christians aren't really all that far from the same behavior (just better impulse control?).

For the most part, Christians of the sort that would turn to the violence of the Old Testament (which does sound an awful lot like this kind of violence--and worse), reside in more modern, open societies with media that's less controlled by the state (or at least wasn't controlled by the state until the recent decade; ie. the U.S.). Whereas most Muslims commonly see the media as controlled by the state (and have a notion that the international media is controlled by Jews). Therefore, when they see an offensive cartoon, they assume the state itself is behind it (or at least tacitly agrees). Hence, feeling persecuted, they reacted against the state (in this case Denmark). Christians would make noise, and threaten or take action against whatever media company disparaged their religion, but wouldn't fully believe it was the state that was behind it. Having grown up in more civilized conditions, their responses would be more political and economic--less violent.

There is no place in a civilized society/nation for the violence shown by the Muslims in this case, regardless of their thinking. Whether they felt persecuted or not, by the government or not, violence just isn't the appropriate response. They need to develop a little bit "thicker skin". Greater reservation, wisdom, tolerance and maturity are called for. It's no fun, but they have to learn to resolve their concerns while curbing their anger and tendecy towards violence. Easy to say (for us), hard to communicate (to them) and probably all but impossible to implement (in their group). It may be that if they finally actually assimilate into the societies of the nations to which they've immigrated, after a few generations, they would react as we react. Then again, they aren't really assimilating; for the most part, they are keeping to themselves and rigidly maintaining their existing culture and react strongly against any incursion. They aren't really trying to 'fit in'...
If this is the case, and it seems to be, their immigration is a bad idea for the host country--it's counterproductive to allow large numbers of people move in who have no intention of behaving within the same constraints as the existing population (including not resorting to violence over offensive cartoons) and who deliberately intend to resist the natural process of joining the culture (and Muslims consider "Western" culture to be offensive, dirty and something to be avoided)(and in some ways, they're right...)(but then, they shouldn't seek to move in).

By the way, there is a plethora of extremely crude, rude, hateful and violent cartoons in Muslim publications that are anti-Semitic and anti-US in nature (so they aren't necessarily 'innocent' of such behavior either).

Where emotions run deep, and tolerance runs shallow, the threat of violence lies not far below the surface.