Comments on A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE CARTOON MADNESS

Go to STOP THE WARS!! - Add a comment - Go to A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE CARTOON MADNESS

Dylan...

...it's a theory not without its holes, I admit. But a French newspaper published the bloody things AGAIN yesterday! WTF????

I think you're maybe making too sttrong a case for the rational. Pat Robertson would not react rationally if I set fire to a Bible in front of him. I don't like what he stands for, but he has a right to hold certain things sacred, and so do the Muslims. I don't think it's for the rational, western mind to question this.

The ex-PM of Denmark was on the radio this morning, and he made an interesting point. He said that in Western 'democracies' (my inverted commas!) freedom of speech was not up for question or compromise, and that's fine. However, he also said that freedom of speech should not be abused in such a way to provoke people to this extent, by blaspheming another religion (or, indeed, by getting into hate-filled xenophobia as certain bloggers here do). Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. After all, we're trying to 'sell' this concept to the developing world as a 'good thing', like democracy. But now, folk are looking and saying - Freedom of speech means you can freely provoke people - how's that a good thing?

Thanks for stopping by, my friend.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on February 9, 2006 at 2:56 AM | link to this | reply

It is an interesting theory.

War-mongers might use this episode to their advantage in the way you suggest, but I doubt it was deliberate. Why would European newspapers help American neocons foment war on Iran?

And it still seems to betray a certain widespread dysfunction among many people of a faith that they are so easily persuaded to burn embassies and call for lynchings because their religious leader was insulted. Muslims have too many legitimate grievances with western Europe and its derivatives to make it in any way rational to take the bait over this, even if bait it was.

Also I am not fully agreeable with the notion of respecting the principles of someone's religion just because it happens to be that person's faith. I would recommend Sam Harris's "The End of Faith." Though I do not share his atheism, he makes a compelling argument that faith-based notions should not be exempt from rational inquiry and skepticism just because they are held sacred by their adherents. Of course, a cartoon depicting Mohammed as a terrorist might not qualify as rational skepticism -- but even a mild critique of the prophet would still violate the prohibition on any "insult" to him, by the standards of those who consider any critique of authority to be treacherous. (Such as the American president.) I have miles of sympathy for Arabs' sufferings at our hands, but I have no patience for fascistic outbursts from any faith. 

posted by Dylan24 on February 8, 2006 at 6:23 PM | link to this | reply

Kiwidreams...

...thanks for reading and commenting.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on February 8, 2006 at 8:08 AM | link to this | reply

An interesting view ...newspaper editors are notoriously self-righteous when it comes to defending their own 'turf' so would little encouragement in thumbing their noses at what they see as infractions against there own freedom...

posted by Leafonariver on February 8, 2006 at 7:56 AM | link to this | reply

katray...

...thanks for reading!

It has the stamp of PNAC all over it, as you say.

Thanks for stopping by.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on February 8, 2006 at 6:40 AM | link to this | reply

Thanks For Reading...

...doctor!

Understand...but disagree, right?

D

posted by DamonLeigh on February 8, 2006 at 6:39 AM | link to this | reply

Oh wow Damon, I believe you're right

It's the PNAC agenda advancing, despite the bloody mess in Iraq, despite the growing resistance to war. Thank you for laying out the connections.

posted by katray4 on February 8, 2006 at 6:07 AM | link to this | reply

I Understand You View

posted by Sophistie on February 8, 2006 at 5:20 AM | link to this | reply