danivon wrote:Hmm. So can we compare to Sikh and Hindu responses? Not always peaceful. How about Chinese reaction to Japan's buying of a few lumps of rock (riots and attacks on Japanese property)?

And as yet I did not get an answer as to how many mosques in the US have been attacked since the Wisconsin massacre. As far as I know at least one was burnt down. What 'culture' were the (presumably American) perpetrators drawing on?

Besides, it's clear from Stone and Parker that they intended humorous parody. Did 'Sam Bacile' intend that, or was he deliberatley trying to create conflict (I suspect the real intention was to rouse Coptic Christians and get more people to back their cause, as much as to denigrate Islam).

Re your first 2 paragraphs, I'll keep an open mind. Is it your position that Islamic rage is relatively similar to US, China, Sikh, or Hindu rage? Are they more similar than different? It doesn't seem that way to me, but perhaps I am mistaken.

Re your 3rd paragraph, sure these analogies always have elements of similarity and difference. Do you think that parodies of Islam would be greeted by the Islamic community in a similar way as Mormon's reacted to "The Book of Mormon". Most people would not accept that, so you'll need some evidence on that claim. Islamic reaction to "The Satanic Verses" seems like a very good comparison to me.

Rage is rage, to be honest. If you look into the relatively recent history of India you will see what happened after Indira Ghandi was assassinated. At least 2,700 Sikhs were murdered by mainly Hindu mobs. And that was part of a longer set of disputes between the two religious communities.

Even this year there were protests by Sikhs (some violent, with fatalities) in support of the convicted terrorist (he was a backup suicide bomber, and the main bomber succeeded). Quite a few see him (and the two men who murdered Indira Ghandi) as a hero.

Then there was the bombing of an Air India flight over the Atlantic in 1985 (a second bomb exploded in Tokyo's Narita airport and was intended to down a second Air India plane). Those appear to have been the work of Sikhs based in the fluffy western democracy of Canada.

In the UK eight years ago, a mob of Sikhs protesting a play called 'Bezhti' (which is set in a Gurdwara and includes rape, abuse and murder) turned violent, and the performances of the play were cancelled.

Extremist Hindus, in addition to the involvement in the 1984 anti-sikh riots/pogroms have a recent history of rage against other groups. For example, there was the riot that culminated in the destruction of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya (which was erected in the 16th Century, so was not a proximate provocation), and there followed riots across India in which both Hindu and Muslim mobs attacked and killed members of the other community. As in the 2002 Gujarat riots, more Muslims were killed than Hindus. That's not to say any side are 'worse' that the other, but I can't really see much difference between them.

While looking at religious violence in India, I also found out about the Christian-Hindu religious problems, with violence in Orissa, Karnataka and with the 'Christianisation' of the Reang and Jamatia tribels in the Naga insurgency. Again, there is provocation and violence being carried out by both sides, with deaths and terrorism.

Looking at India, I can't really see how the Islamic violence is much different from the Sikh, Hindu or Christian violence, although the scale is generally in proportion to the size of the communities. Certainly it is not just a Muslim thing, and doesn't even seem to be about the 'interface' with Islam.

What it is about, largely, is religious communities which contain a significant minority of chauvanists (often in more than one sense), quick to anger and easily led by demagogues, often for political reasons. It's about centuries of grudges going on and never being resolved, because it's more convenient to use resentment and ignorance to unify in-group than to reconcile across groups. It's also often about having a significant enough number of underemployed angry young males hanging around.

danivon wrote:Besides, it's clear from Stone and Parker that they intended humorous parody. Did 'Sam Bacile' intend that, or was he deliberatley trying to create conflict (I suspect the real intention was to rouse Coptic Christians and get more people to back their cause, as much as to denigrate Islam).

Did Bill Maher intend humorous parody when he filmed "Religulous?" Many, many books have been written by atheists that are primarily anti-Christian. Riots? Death threats?

There is something rather unique about Islam that causes rioting and death across multiple continents. This was caused by an amateur video that apparently isn't even a full-length movie?

Btw, I love the fact that the President again condemned the movie today at the UN.

Which is more important: the sensibilities of Muslims or free speech?

Bill Maher committed a major sin as comedien when he made " religulous. "

It wasn't very funny.

Why is parody and ridicule of Christianity and Judaism tolerated, and Islam is not? Could anyone help me understand that?

I think of "The book of Mormon" play, the "Piss Christ" art, et. al.; and see quite a dichotomy in the left's tolerance of supposed humor while any comment about Islam is called Islamaphobia and religious intolerance. If a religion is strong, should it be able to stand on it's own regardless of detractors?

From the President today at the UN:

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

For once, I'll go with the atheist, Sam Harris:

Consider what is actually happening: Some percentage of the world’s Muslims—Five percent? Fifteen? Fifty? It’s not yet clear—is demanding that all non-Muslims conform to the strictures of Islamic law. And where they do not immediately resort to violence in their protests, they threaten it. Carrying a sign that reads “Behead Those Who Insult the Prophet” may still count as an example of peaceful protest, but it is also an assurance that infidel blood would be shed if the imbecile holding the placard only had more power. This grotesque promise is, of course, fulfilled in nearly every Muslim society. To make a film like “Innocence of Muslims” anywhere in the Middle East would be as sure a method of suicide as the laws of physics allow.
What exactly was in the film? Who made it? What were their motives? Was Muhammad really depicted? Was that a Qur’an burning, or some other book? Questions of this kind are obscene. Here is where the line must be drawn and defended without apology: We are free to burn the Qur’an or any other book, and to criticize Muhammad or any other human being. Let no one forget it.

The President is wrong. Anyone who attacks the video or suggests it is the cause of the rioting is wrong.

I'm not for needlessly offending anyone's religion. However, the right to do so is as dear as the right to worship as you please or not to worship at all.

The only reason I find items like "Piss Christ" objectionable is because they receive federal funding. That's wrong. Period. Free speech is great. Funding something that mocks religion is a violation of the First Amendment, not a support of it.

Condemning private free speech, like this controversial video, is something a President should never do.

Doctor Fate wrote:Did Bill Maher intend humorous parody when he filmed "Religulous?"

Yup. It was savage humour, but it was an attempt at humour, and was based on looking at what people believe and do. By the way, you do know that he looked at several religions, including Islam in that film, right?

Many, many books have been written by atheists that are primarily anti-Christian. Riots? Death threats?

Not many riots in recent decades, no. However, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others have reported death threats. And there's always room for a good old fashioned book-burning in parts of the USA or (for some reason) the Philippines.

There is something rather unique about Islam that causes rioting and death across multiple continents. This was caused by an amateur video that apparently isn't even a full-length movie?

Hinduism and Sikhism have clearly also led to a lot of rioting and death. Not on mulitple contintents so much, because they are mainly confined to India whereas Islam is the main religion in parts of Asia, Africa and Europe. But if you include terrorism, you'll find that Sikhism at least has struck outside Asia too.

Btw, I love the fact that the President again condemned the movie today at the UN.

Which is more important: the sensibilities of Muslims or free speech?

You were whining that people were taking Romney out of context with the 47% thing? Well, did you see the bit of Obama's speech where he also referred to the First Amendment and free speech? If not, perhaps you are just relying on partisan sources. If so, then all I can say is 'Hah!'

Defending free speech does not mean having to defend every use of it. It doesn't even mean not condemning what people say or do. Free speech is indeed valuable, and that includes the freedom to express a negative opinion of an odious film.

Doctor Fate wrote:Condemning private free speech, like this controversial video, is something a President should never do.

Rubbish. If someone uses their 'free speech' to say "death to America", do you think that the POTUS should avoid criticism?

Here's the bit of Obama's UN speech that DF is wilfully blind to:

I know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

Can we get back on topic, and away from your Obama obsession now, DF?

danivon wrote:You were whining that people were taking Romney out of context with the 47% thing? Well, did you see the bit of Obama's speech where he also referred to the First Amendment and free speech? If not, perhaps you are just relying on partisan sources. If so, then all I can say is 'Hah!'.

So, what are you saying? He supports the First Amendment by constantly condemning the exercise of it (as he has with this video)?

Defending free speech does not mean having to defend every use of it.

Yes it does.

It does not mean "agreeing" with the way that freedom is used, but it absolutely means defending its use as long as it's lawful.

It doesn't even mean not condemning what people say or do. Free speech is indeed valuable, and that includes the freedom to express a negative opinion of an odious film

He's free to critique the movie. However, he has consistently bemoaned the movie instead of unapologetically standing for freedom of expression. As POTUS, I believe he looks like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth. The movie-maker was within his rights, but sadly, what he did has caused a furor.

Wrong. The reaction of some wackos is not the movie-maker's fault.

danivon wrote:Here's the bit of Obama's UN speech that DF is wilfully blind to:

I know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

Can we get back on topic, and away from your Obama obsession now, DF?

I'm not blind to it. I suggest that he has been playing both sides. And, he has.

And, this fits nicely into the topic. Why does Islam respond in a way that Christianity does not? That Judaism does not?

Doctor Fate wrote:And, this fits nicely into the topic. Why does Islam respond in a way that Christianity does not? That Judaism does not?

I don't know. Why do Sikhism, Hinduism or Chinese Nationalism respond in a way that Islam does?

And is the reaction of a vocal/violent minority actually representative of the whole?

fate

The movie-maker was within his rights

Actually he wasn't. He is on probation, and one of the prohibitions to him, is using the Internet without specific permission from his probation officer. So when he uploaded his movie he was acting outside of that specific prohibition .

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:And, this fits nicely into the topic. Why does Islam respond in a way that Christianity does not? That Judaism does not?

I don't know. Why do Sikhism, Hinduism or Chinese Nationalism respond in a way that Islam does?

And is the reaction of a vocal/violent minority actually representative of the whole?

Really? With riots on several continents? US embassies ransacked? Terrorist flags flying? An ambassador murdered?

Do tell!

rickyp wrote:fate

The movie-maker was within his rights

Actually he wasn't. He is on probation, and one of the prohibitions to him, is using the Internet without specific permission from his probation officer. So when he uploaded his movie he was acting outside of that specific prohibition .

Yes, and IF the subject I was addressing was putting it on youtube and NOT the making of it, you would have a point.

Since I wasn't, you don't.