fate

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

You are talking about "freedom of speech"? No?
If he had made a film, and no one saw it..... nothing would have happened. It was only the "broadcast of the film through You Tube that this film became an issue.
The whole affair blew up becasue his film was posted to You Tube and people beyond his immediate freinds and family began to see the film... And, his right to use You Tube had been taken away as a condition of his prohibition. So his "right" to free speech, had been restricted.
This right had been restricted because the Internet had been a tool of his to defraud people. If his right to use the Interent could be restricted when he abused its use in order to defraud people, why can`t his access be restricted when all he wants to do is incite.

There are millions of Muslims living in western countries. The US, UK etc. How many of them have acted with violence since the movie was released. So its not a Muslim thing so much or wouldn`t these Muslims also be burning and killing.
The violence is limited to nations that are, or until recently have been, dictatorships where speech was tightly controlled. So part of the reason is that many of this people have no understanding that the film wasn`t somehow condoned by the government. Un their experience for a film to be made and seen, the govenrment would have had to condone ...
In the areas where the Muslims are rioting, we`re dealing with largely ignorant populace. In Muslim countries with a more educated people, there hasn`t been the same violence.
And finally most of the nations where violence occurred are in a state of limited governance and elements who oppose democracy and the establishment of governments that they oppose have deliberately used the film as a tool to whip up the ignorant....
Compare Muslim behaviours around the world, and its not the religion. Its the other factors....
Religion is a useful tool for those who would control people. And when used in such a fashion it doesn`t always reflect the religion`s true message. Which, at its heart is, treat others as you would be treated...

Hey, your argument is incredible.

and your response is as thoughtful, insightful, reasoned and supported as your arguements usually are...

rickyp wrote:and your response is as thoughtful, insightful, reasoned and supported as your arguements usually are...

Okay, you wanna go? Let's go. Here's your brilliant post:

You are talking about "freedom of speech"? No?

Yes.

If he had made a film, and no one saw it..... nothing would have happened. It was only the "broadcast of the film through You Tube that this film became an issue.

Okay, please point to the President making You Tube, and not the film itself, as the issue. He has made it about free speech and using it to defame the Prophet.

The whole affair blew up becasue his film was posted to You Tube and people beyond his immediate freinds and family began to see the film... And, his right to use You Tube had been taken away as a condition of his prohibition. So his "right" to free speech, had been restricted.

Brilliant! And, if the President and his Administration had set off on a campaign against "prohibition" (sic) violations, you'd be onto something.

This right had been restricted because the Internet had been a tool of his to defraud people. If his right to use the Interent could be restricted when he abused its use in order to defraud people, why can`t his access be restricted when all he wants to do is incite.

Agreed. So what? I'm not defending his right to violate probation. I am defending his right to make a movie. If he made the movie and someone else posted it, we'd be in exactly the same position, save he would not have violated probation.

So, all of your arguing is . . . less than a tempest in a teapot.

That's why I didn't care to respond, because your "point" is not very pointed.

Compare Muslim behaviours around the world, and its not the religion. Its the other factors....
Religion is a useful tool for those who would control people. And when used in such a fashion it doesn`t always reflect the religion`s true message. Which, at its heart is, treat others as you would be treated...

This is pretty incoherent. Religion is useful for controlling people, which is against the message of the religion . . . oy.

Now, is the heart of Islam the Golden Rule? That doesn't seem to be what they recite . . . and, it doesn't seem to be what the Prophet practiced. He was quite the warrior back in the day.

What parole violation did Salmon Rushdie break? Did the Muslim community react with peace toward Rushdie's freedom of speech?

All sorts of reasons can be given as to whether or not this film should have been made. I do not think that is Steve's point. The reaction to any negative media to Islam brings a violent (or intended violence) that is the issue.

yes Bbauska you are right. The issue IS how Muslims reacted to the film ....

How did Muslims in the UK, or the US or most countries react?
As I stated, the violence only ocurred in nations with other criteria in common. Mostly a pre-existing government control of media, and free speech, a poorly educated populace and a government that has an opposition that benefits from unrest... or a govenrmetn that benefits from the populace having an external enemy to focus upon ...
If it was only the religion ...then wouldn't there be violence everywhere Muslims have mosques?
Clearly, the religion by itself .... doesn't create a culture of violence.

There were riots in Australia.

But in all honesty Ricky, I think you're missing the point. Steve isn't saying that all muslims are inherently predisposed to violent reactions in these situations, he's saying that Islam as a faith is more prone to violent outbursts than other faiths. I think it would be difficult to disprove that.

Sassenach wrote:There were riots in Australia.

But in all honesty Ricky, I think you're missing the point. Steve isn't saying that all muslims are inherently predisposed to violent reactions in these situations, he's saying that Islam as a faith is more prone to violent outbursts than other faiths. I think it would be difficult to disprove that.

What he said.

Sassenach wrote:There were riots in Australia.

But in all honesty Ricky, I think you're missing the point. Steve isn't saying that all muslims are inherently predisposed to violent reactions in these situations, he's saying that Islam as a faith is more prone to violent outbursts than other faiths. I think it would be difficult to disprove that.

Even though other faiths have shown that they too are prone to violence. I've already mentioned Sikhs and Hindus (and Christians) in India managing to create merry hell without a Muslim being involved.

It doesn't take much for Catholics and Protestants to come to blows in Northern Ireland (it happened a few weeks ago), and while religion is not the only factor (neither is it in the Middle East), it's a pretty major one.

You'd think that playing music outside a church would just be free expression. But it's also pretty provocative when it's an Orange band playing marching music outside a Catholic church in Belfast. Sure, both sides should be more thin-skinned, but I suggest you guys go over there and tell them that if you have the bottle. I'm staying well out of that one.

You'd think that simply singing 'sectarian' songs at a Socttish football match was just free expression, but when we not so long ago had letter-bombs sent to people associated with one club, I'm not convinced that it's actually worth defending.

sass

he's saying that Islam as a faith is more prone to violent outbursts than other faiths. I think it would be difficult to disprove that.

I know what he's saying. And its not too hard to disprove.
Take all of the factors I've listed:
- places there were or are totolitarian states where the govenrment generally controls the media and/or communication
- ignorance, that is a poorly educated populace
- states where a faction is trying to rest political control away from the central government and where unrest might help them in this endevour
- states where a focus on an issue that provides a focus for anger and resentment from the populace to an outside force....

Take all of those factors and most of th factors are present are in places where the violence occured. On the other hand there are many many countries where Muslims reside in significant numbers and yet there was no violence. Even if there were demonstrations...

Moreover, take a look back through history and religious wars ocurred exclusively in places that featured the characteristics I've just enumerated. Catholics, Protestants, and all the rest of the religions were often used as causes that advanced the power and or wealth for the elites that propogated these wars... (Of course most of these characterisitcs were common pretty much everywhere, until the evolution of the democratic society. ..)
So in democratic societies, there were protests against the film. And in Australia, they became violent? But anywhere else? Moreover the response in many Muslim countries to the initial violence has been what? More violence or a repudiation of the violence? The latter .
Does that mean Muslims are prone to violence but repent?
Steve wants to demonize an entire religion. Thats at the heart of every religious conflict throughout history, the idea that the enemy has an evil religion... The acceptance of the demonization of an entire faith makes killing them in wars or treating them as less than human easier...

A handful of Muslims got violent after being stirred up by provacateurs with an agenda. Most of the Muslim population didn't. You can't define the religion by the handful of bad actors.
Especially not Australians...

This seems relevant to the divide

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ara ... story.html

UNITED NATIONS — The head of the Arab League called Wednesday for the international community to criminalize blasphemy, warning that insults to religion pose a serious threat to global peace and security. The comments put him squarely at odds with the United States and many of its western allies, which are resolutely opposed to restrictions on freedom of expression.

Getting back to an earlier point, I don't mind Obama/Clinton's desire to soothe the Arab street. We do have soldiers and others in harms way, and there's no need to throw gas on the fire. In yesterday's liturgy we considered:

Whose tongue shall be a thrusting sword
Whose words shall make for peace

That's not to say that I endorse the US approach to the middle east. But let's leave that to a different forum discussion.

Yes, but is that an Islamic v ROW divide, or something else? I think it's more of a ROW v Some of the West thing, frankly.

In Russia, the Orthodox Church and the state were able to have three members of Pussy Riot jailed for blasphemy. I can understand that what they did was trespass, was rude, and could well be something that should be punished somehow (a nominal fine). But blasphemy, and offence to the religious people there? If the government there were not so punishing such 'insults' to religion, I expect that the ROC and it's followers would be making a similar call upon it to do so as the Arab League have done for the international 'community'.

Of course, In Russia they don't have mobs attacking buildings in response to such 'blasphemy'. Not that they need to when the State and Church are working together to 'protect' the Church from offence. And, of course, they utilise the mob for the seperate-but-related creed of Russian Nationalism and Putin-worship.

The Pussy Riot thing was a little different though, in that the blasphemy charge was clearly just a pretext.

Blasphemy laws are actually a very clear indication of the divide the Islamic world and the rest. Apostasy laws are even moreso. I can't find the reference with a cursory search of the internet, but from memory I believe the most lenient apostasy law in a majority Islamic country is in Indonesia, where the punishment is 5 years in prison. In Saudi, Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan, Sudan, Qatar, Yemen, UAE and almost certainly a few others apostasy carries a death sentence.

Of the 22 nations of the Arab League all have been totalitrian for the last 50 years, with the exception of the last few years when only Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Palestine and Lebanon are "democratic".
It fits that in totalitarian or authoritarian nations (like the current Russia) that laws restricting free speech, including criminlaizing blasphemy are easier to propose, and to actual enact.
When you get to nations that are democratic (INdonesia) it becomes more difficult and indeed the comparatively light sentence in Indonesia for "blasphemy" gives an indication...
At one time, nations in Western Europe also had laws against blasphemy and heretics and witches were regularly burned and those of othr faiths persecuted...
But the elite in power were allied with the Chirch to keep each other in power and it served both parties to enact blasphemy laws. Same thing in the Arab world today.
As minorities wield power in a democracy (votes being power), protections for minorities increase... And tolerance increases as well.
The Arab world is behind most of the ROW in the development of democracy and individual tights. If the Arab World were Catholic, they'd be protecting the Catholic Church from blasphemy and enforcing its doctrines. No birth control etc.
There's nothing about Islam that makes it so different than Catholicism that either couldn't and haven't both been used by the elites in power to consolidate and control the power they enjoy over the masses.

When you get to nations that are democratic (INdonesia) it becomes more difficult and indeed the comparatively light sentence in Indonesia for "blasphemy" gives an indication...

Comparatively is the operative word. It's still grotesque, just slightly less so than a death sentence.

The Arab world is behind most of the ROW in the development of democracy and individual tights. If the Arab World were Catholic, they'd be protecting the Catholic Church from blasphemy and enforcing its doctrines. No birth control etc.
There's nothing about Islam that makes it so different than Catholicism that either couldn't and haven't both been used by the elites in power to consolidate and control the power they enjoy over the masses.

There are plenty of non-Islamic countries which are run by despots. I'm not aware of any that send apostates to prison for five years, let alone sentence them to death. There are plenty of Catholic countries which have only recently moved away from dictatorship (see most of South America for example), they didn't imprison/execute apostates either. You have to go back hundreds of years to find equivalent laws in non-Islamic countries.

Islam is different in that respect. I'm not saying they're doomed forever to be stuck with these medieval attitudes, but it doesn't make any sense to try and ignore that difference.