"It is not"? A very bold statement to which I simple answer: "Religion
is violent!" Whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim, each of these
religions has for a historical period had aggressive followers,
becoming the embodiment of violence.
Have we forgotten the Old Testament stories of killings and murdering
women, children and animals in the name of the Jewish God? Are we to
forget that half the Palestinian people is exiled from its own land
because of a religious whim?
Have we forgotten the holy Inquisition? The Hundred Years' War?
Christian religious wars wouldn't stop in France till a secular
agreement (The Edict of Nantes - 1598) was imposed by Henry IV (only to
be murdered by a catholic fanatic!) Are we to ignore the opposition
they manifest against safe sex and abortion?
Wouldn't it be good to remember that the greatest moments of the Arab
Empire were under secularly tolerant Caliphs (for those who remember
the stories we're told of al-Akhtal al-Kabir, one of the greatest poets
in the Arab world, entering drunk in Haroun al-Rachid's presence) and
that religious ones have brought in ignorance (burning the Library of
Alexandria!) Should we forget that those who blow themselves killing
civilians are called martyrs and are believed to go directly to
paradise to be in the company of virgins because they died in the name
of Allah? Are we to believe that those followers of Islam (excluding
the moderates) who hail and elevate such terrorists to the level of
sainthood are not violent?
Some would say that a religion cannot be accused of violence because
it's not its fault if some radical believer commits extreme acts. But
don't the extremists always justify their acts through an
interpretation of the same religion? Believing in a religion is not an
act of violence; expressing your beliefs (the same that Danish
cartoonist did) shoud be tolerable; but committing irrational actions
such as threatening other nations cannot for one second be mistaken for
anything but violence. When people belonging to a tribal pack cannot
understand the individualistic values of freedom and liberty and speak
in tribal terms (hey tribe of Denmark, punish one of your herdsmen or
we burn your products!), we should understand the distances of
evolution that stands between us. We cannot go backward. Respect, like
George had for Lenny in "Of Mice And Men", has its limits too.
DrSMITH.
I'm sorry to tell you that you have totally missed the mark. I have
nothing against your beliefs or that of your co-religionists. The
religious reaction today is just history repeating itself: other
religions have bee down that same path (burning embassies or burning
witches, what's the difference?). I know that each religion has its own
evolution, but it angers me that in a time when communications are so
developed, some people manage to act in a backward fashion.
In what way does some unfaithful drawing your object of belief affects
your faith? Insulting you say? Well, Japanese killing whales is
insulting to me! Should I go and torch their embassy??!
> millions of westerns do without even knowing why,
Mind you, they do know why (more than you'll ever imagine): they have
been there centuries before you did, and it took a heck of an effort to
bring them to what they are now.
[...]
> and what comes after wards is just
> a secondary concern to them.
Are you saying that it should not be a secondary concern to them?
[...]
> when would you understand that muslims are the most tolerant people on
> earth?
History states otherwise. When I was at school, there was a complete
chapter in history called "al-fat7 al Islami". I don't know how waging
war can be considered tolerance. Lebanese History has showed that
Muslims can be as sectarian as anybody else. Tolerance my friend is not
the virtue of a religious group, it's an individual characteristic and
it's earned.
[...]
> why mentioning the jews would be considered as anti-semitism and
> undermining the religious tolerance, but depicting these photos that
> represent the total hate, detestation and hatred would be fine with
> you???
Where did I claim that it would be fine with me? I was very thorough
about my criticism and directed it at the Christian, Jewish and Islamic
faiths. Moreover, in a recent post from Denmark, I learned that
Holocoast denial is not a crime there. Otherwise, it would have been
ironic, don't you think?
[...]
is it just because the muslims worldwide are considered outlaws
> now and they have to suffer the consequences of the your
> administrations' elicited acts?????
You haven't read the Danish editor's apology, have you? There are
Muslims in Denmark too and I don't believe for a second that they are
considered outlaws - unless you have proof of the contrary.
[...]
> it is very absurd to provoke an action and not expect a reaction,
I agree with this ...
> because everyone knows the upcoming repercussions of publishing these
> caricatures, and i guess it is now danemark's liablity to suffer the
> consequences of their freedom of speech, because who wants to practice
> absolute liberty have to conisder its outcomes,
Now this is were I totally disagree. First of all, one can only imagine
the repercussion, and not know it beforehand (else, believe me, they
wouldn't have done it). Another thing you don't seem to grasp is that
unlike some countries where individual action is state controlled,
Northern Europe have an evolved sense of freedom. What a person writes
is this person's responsibility. Accusing a whole State of what one
citizen says or does, because he's free to do it, underlines a huge
ignorance from your part. Now let me ask you: why is this individual
(the cartoonist) bound to understand and respect your beliefs if you
don't understand or respect his rights???
[...]
nothing is absolute in
> this world, laws are set to control liberty,
Another attempt at preaching? Laws are set to guaranty equal liberties
not to control them.
DrSMITH.
[...]