Wednesday, June 25, 2008



Cartoon ruling may prompt 'Islamophobia'

We read:
"The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a league of 57 Muslim nations, said a Danish court's rejection of a suit against a paper for printing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad could provoke "Islamophobia".

Last Thursday the High Court for western Denmark rejected a suit against Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that first published cartoons of Islam's prophet, leading to deadly protests in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

The court said the editors had not meant to depict Muslims as criminals or terrorists, the cartoons had not broken the law, and there was a relationship between acts of violence and Islam - comments that provoked outcry among Muslim groups in Denmark. "It is a known fact that acts of terror have been carried out in the name of Islam and it is not illegal to make satire out of this relationship," the court said.

The Saudi-based OIC, the largest grouping of Muslim countries, said the ruling could encourage "Islamophobia", a fear or dislike of Islam, which the group has identified as existing in the West.

Source

It's the Muslim terrorists who encourage "Islamophobia"

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Islamophobia" would be defined as an irrational fear of Islam.

The sort of fear that leads to censorship of political satire.

The sort of fear that leads to acquiescing to irrational Islamic demands.

I'd say this court's decision demonstrates a complete lack of "Islamophobia."

Anonymous said...

Islamophobia? Not hardly. Islamodisgusted maybe, for I don't like what they stand for. Any religion which advocates killing "unbelievers" simply makes me sick. Those who ascribe to such insanity are a pox on the earth. They are entitled to their beliefs, I guess, but they will not tell me what to believe and not infringe on MY right to believe as I see fit. Why don't we just ship them a few million teddy bears and be done with them.

Anonymous said...

"They are entitled to their beliefs, I guess,"

No one is entitled to believe they can kill me simply because i disagree with them! The only real defense against people like that is "total and complete eradication"! Some day, assuming the free world survives, we'll understand that.

Anonymous said...

Hello Good Gentles All!

Hello Anonymous!

"No one is entitled to believe they can kill me simply because i disagree with them! ..."

"... The only real defense against people like that is "total and complete eradication"!"

Hmm. They are not allowed to think they should kill me and if they do I will kill them. That is an interesting position.

Are you actually harmed by what they merely think?

Is not your position, "total and complete eradication", simply adopting their point of view?

Pax,

InFides

Anonymous said...

Infides,

You beat me to the obvious retort.

What a man thinks, feels, or says can not hurt me. It's how he acts, and how those around him re-act, that are what define his legal bounds.

When we elevate thought to crime, we are no better than those we oppose.

Anonymous said...

Hello Good Gentles All!

Hello Stan_B!

I have read with admiration many of your posts recently.

Consider this a digital handshake.

Pax,

InFides

Anonymous said...

Pax, i think we can all agree that they've gone far beyond meer words and thoughts. (ie: 9/11?) No, words and thoughts can not harm me, but action based on those words and thoughts most surely can, and have! One doesn't try to understand the thought process of a mad dog who has already attacked you. One simply destroy's it out of self-preservation. In this situation, you are either the victor or the victim. There is no third choice.

Anonymous said...

Hello Good Gentles All!

Hello Anonymous!

"One doesn't try to understand the thought process of a mad dog who has already attacked you. One simply destroy's it out of self-preservation."

I disagree. I also feel that you should not be allowed to think that way. Will you please stand still because my aim is a little iffy.

There is an extraordinary difference between someone attacking you physically and someone thinking things you do not like.

Who will decide who should live or die because of what he thinks?

It seems as though you do not want to distinguish between those who think what you do not like and those who do what you do not like.

Feel free to kill the rabid dog; but to kill every dog because one has bitten you seems harsh.

I am happy to make war upon those who would make war upon me.

I am unwilling to kill those who simply think differently from me.

A man's thoughts are not a crime.

Pax,

InFides

Anonymous said...

"I disagree. I also feel that you should not be allowed to think that way. Will you please stand still because my aim is a little iffy.".... Pax

Apparently, you're not as intelligent as i once thought, so i'll try and make this simple for you. The thoughts and words of others "are not" a threat to me, but actions based on those words and thoughts are. Got it now?

Anonymous said...

Hello Good Gentles All!

Hello Anonymous!

I always had it. I merely responded to your original post:

"No one is entitled to BELIEVE they can kill me simply because i disagree with them! ..."

Were you arguing belief (thought process) or action? What did you actually say in your post?

The concepts of belief and action are very different. The words have specific and different meanings.

If you mean to say action then say action and not belief otherwise people will assume you mean belief (because you say it) when you actually mean action.

As I said, defend yourself from people who attempt to harm you but belief harms you not at all. In other words, I responded to your adjusted second argument. Apparently you missed that sentence in my post. I am assuming you read my entire post. Of course, if you did, then you would have realized I agreed with what you said in your last post.

I concede that you changed your argument in your second post but am I not entitled to have a little fun every now and then? ;-)


"but action based on those words and thoughts most surely can, and have!"

It still seems that you are suggesting that some sort of preemptive strike against those who disagree with you is acceptable because others who disagreed with you acted out. If you mean to only go after those who have actually done you harm or present a clear threat then we are in agreement (this is what I said in my reply.) If, however, you want to go after people who think badly towards you but who have done nothing and present no threat simply in order to preempt a possible action on their part then we are on opposite sides.


"The thoughts and words of others "are not" a threat to me, but actions based on those words and thoughts are."

Read the quote above and the one at the top of this post and honestly tell me you said the same thing both times. If you say one thing and I respond and then you say something quite different and tell me I was in error in my first response to the original quote then who is in error?


"Apparently, you're not as intelligent as i once thought,"

Oh dear. Personal insults. Always the last refuge of a scoundrel.

I am not so brittle that I could be affected by such insults but if such behavior elevates your internal sense of superiority then by all means insult me in any way you wish. I am always glad to help salve someone's ego.

Got it now?

Pax,

InFides