Danish (anti)-Islamic Cartoons

k-punk

Spectres of Mark
borderpolice said:
rubbish. i didn't say anything to this effect. of course i didn't rule it out as a partial explanation either. religious belief is surely a determining factor in one's setting of educational and professional goals -- max weber has famously exapanded on this, and amish refuse to let their children have higher education. now whether similar explanations would be worhtwhile for Islam I have my doubts, if only because it's such a vast cult with over a billion followers. but the fact remains that the usual explanations: racism, poverty don't apply as other groups seemingly starting out in similar situation have taken different career trajectories.

Racism is clearly not anything like a fully adequate answer because of the relative achievements of Sikhs, Hindus etc. I'm not calling for 'that' kind of explanation - what I want to know is, if it IS the religion that accounts for the under-achievement, what specific features of the religion are involved? And can anything be done to counter these effects?



I can't say that
saying "there should be a political, rather than a religious outlet for their disaffection." isn't an answer at all, since there are plenty of political outlets. i also don't see in what sense organisations like al-kaida are not political.

Al Qaeda pursues political aims for religious ends. It does not have a political program that is separable from Islam (even though, I hasten to add, it is possible to separate Islam from Al Q). What I am asking for is a political outlet that will channel alienation, frustration etc in the service of THIS-WORDLY political ends. There's a mass movement that's doing that? Show me where...
 

borderpolice

Well-known member
k-punk said:
Racism is clearly not anything like a fully adequate answer because of the relative achievements of Sikhs, Hindus etc. I'm not calling for 'that' kind of explanation - what I want to know is, if it IS the religion that accounts for the under-achievement, what specific features of the religion are involved? And can anything be done to counter these effects?

I am somewhat sceptical about using religion to explain non-religious phenomena. there is the well-known contention, which i'm being told -- though have not checked myself -- has an empirical basis, that monotheisms have a problem with tolerance of other world-views, especially other religions. polytheisms can simply add the sacral personae and ritual to their own set (of course even monotheism has some facilities for this, pace the incorporation of germanic rituals in the christmas festivities, or the conversion of african gods into saints, like senhor do bomfin in bahia, who is really one of the yoruba orishas)). but otherwise? firstly, there are way too many believers (with their private interpretations of doctrine) for the big cults. whatever you say as the core of religion X, there's somebody who says: no, you got it wrong ... it seems in fact that part of a religion's dynamic identity is just this ongoing polemos about exactly what that religion is about. in any case, it seems pretty clear that what is touted as doctrine by the religious bureaucracy has often only tenous connections with what the majority of believers make of it -- this is easily empirically testable. moreover, there is the even bigger problem that pervades all social science, that it seems impossible to account for people's behaviour from their self-descriptions. In particular, from person's self-description as follower of sect X, one can virtually never predict that person's behaviour in non-religious context (like politics, education, art, sexuality).

k-punk said:
What I am asking for is a political outlet that will channel alienation, frustration etc in the service of THIS-WORDLY political ends. There's a mass movement that's doing that? Show me where...

what you are in effect asking for is form muslim youth to stop being religious, or rather, you want a political machine that spits out atheists when you input muslims.
 
Last edited:
D

droid

Guest
Michelle Malkin equating the Danish Cartoons with the new Abu Ghraib pictures:

Watching the news in my hotel room before my speech, I just saw CNN air a few of the new, highly inflammatory Abu Ghraib photos now making the rounds.

No pixelation of the nude prisoners in the photos. No disclaimers about paying respect to members of the US military who will be endangered by publication of the pics. The Washington Post used the opportunity to republish Abu Ghraib photos and video it obtained in April 2004.

Readers have been e-mailing all day the question the MSM needs to answer:

Why the Abu Ghraib photos, but not the Mohammed Cartoons?

We're listening...

She really is a nasty piece of work...

http://www.michellemalkin.com/

BTW - I havent found a direct source, but Ive read in several newspapers now that an original set of cartoons featuring Christian imagery was rejected by the original publisher on the grounds of the being 'too controversial'... :confused:

Can anyone confirm?
 

basmala

New member
I might be the first muslim to participate in this discussion and the first thing I want to say is that I m really disappointed at how people who claim to respect human rights and freedoms are reacting towards other people's rights and freedoms!!
I grew up hearing that Europe-especially the northen countries is a heaven for the freedom of speach and respect of people's beliefs and choices in life. Maybe muslims are overreacting when they burn the facades of some ambassies but it's easy to criticize other people's anger when you are cool. Now, if you try and put yourself for a moment in our shoes by imagining that someone could insult something that you hold for the most sacred of things just to have fun, then how would you feel? That the thing we hold for so sacred does not make sense to you is part of our personal freedom and that no one should insult it is our undiscutable right. If anyone does no agree with me, she or he should reconcider the definition she or he has of freedoms and right because that's a vision that covers only himself!!
 

sufi

lala
welcome to basmala

i kept off this thread so far as it became very ignorant quite quickly, that just seems to me to be symptomatic of how this whole furore is cooked up by haters & extremists... :(
 

minikomi

pu1.pu2.wav.noi
droid said:
Michelle Malkin equating the Danish Cartoons with the new Abu Ghraib pictures:



She really is a nasty piece of work...

http://www.michellemalkin.com/

BTW - I havent found a direct source, but Ive read in several newspapers now that an original set of cartoons featuring Christian imagery was rejected by the original publisher on the grounds of the being 'too controversial'... :confused:

Can anyone confirm?


Yep.. heard bout this on the wireless, it's true.
 

bassnation

the abyss
basmala said:
I might be the first muslim to participate in this discussion and the first thing I want to say is that I m really disappointed at how people who claim to respect human rights and freedoms are reacting towards other people's rights and freedoms!!
I grew up hearing that Europe-especially the northen countries is a heaven for the freedom of speach and respect of people's beliefs and choices in life. Maybe muslims are overreacting when they burn the facades of some ambassies but it's easy to criticize other people's anger when you are cool. Now, if you try and put yourself for a moment in our shoes by imagining that someone could insult something that you hold for the most sacred of things just to have fun, then how would you feel? That the thing we hold for so sacred does not make sense to you is part of our personal freedom and that no one should insult it is our undiscutable right. If anyone does no agree with me, she or he should reconcider the definition she or he has of freedoms and right because that's a vision that covers only himself!!

i found the cartoons to be crass and pointless personally. and i agree with sufi that there are people on both sides who want to keep this boiling over for their own purposes. we should not give them the satisfaction.

however, there is no indisputable right not to be offended. there are many things i find offensive, and pretty much up there right at the top is the idea that a baying mob can dictate what people say or think about religion.

if someones faith is strong, then how does a sleight or insult to easily provoke and defeat? shouldn't it be robust enough to deal with criticism? by the same token, its fine to critcise the cartoonists and various publishers - and this is the way to deal with this idoicy - using the same freedom of speech that allowed it in the first place.
 
world.jpg
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Odd, isn't it, that those lovely Islam4UK chappies tend to be somewhat less vocal about the muder of Muslims when it happens in this kind of violence, rather than the kind supposedly meted out by the Third Lancashire Baby-Rapers on a daily basis...
 
Last edited:

craner

Beast of Burden
I think Daniel Pipes has finally gone insane. I got to the words "world-historic figure" and almost blanked out. And this coming from somebody who can actually stomach Bat Ye'or.
 

vimothy

yurp
I think Daniel Pipes has finally gone insane. I got to the words "world-historic figure" and almost blanked out. And this coming from somebody who can actually stomach Bat Ye'or.

Ah, I'm an avid Pipes watcher. I missed this!

Pipes doesn't even identify the problem correctly. This:

That Islamic challenge consists of two components: on the one hand, an indigenous population’s withering Christian faith, inadequate birthrate, and cultural diffidence, and on the other an influx of devout, prolific, and culturally assertive Muslim immigrants.

Sounds scary but is basically total bullshit. Since Pipes falls at the first hurdle (diagnosis), his prognosis is irrelevant even before it is insane.
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
I briefly looked at K Punk's Grim Britannia thread, then I went to see K Punk's profile and then looked through some of his posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus
Top