Core issue behind this cartoon business

Most religions try to avoid arguing over the core ideas behind their religions. Instead they have a tendency to hide behind dogma and unfounded supposedly “self-evident” axioms. As a result of this they are incapable of convincing people via logic people that their views/beliefs are correct. Religious belief requires a leap of faith.

The problem with such a leap of faith is that this will not convince non-believers of the truth behind the claims of the believer. Non-believers will still see those beliefs as ill founded, since they have not been given conclusive evidence that those beliefs are correct. Non-believers in the absence of conclusive evidence have nothing to stop them from assuming those beliefs to be false. If someone holds a false belief why should anyone be required to respect it? If a non-believer says something contrary to the those beliefs and offends a believer, surely the cause of offense is on the believer’s end.

You have a right to hold an opinion you want, but others only have an obligation to respect that opinion as long as it’s well supported. I think a failure to acknowledge this is at the root of the current problems.


Discuss / Flame me / Make ad hominen attacks / Hijack the topic / Call me a bigot / Correct my grammar and spelling / Point me to link a were my argument is destroyed

Captain Trips

Your topic is incorrect as religion is far from the "core issue" behind the cartoons.

The islamic world likely does not have broadband and internet in such wide availability, so perhaps if you were also cut off from say, news outside Ireland for decades and someone brought you pictures making fun of drunk Irish people and telling you half a billion people were laughing at you, you'd be angry. So, IMHO, we can understand easily where the anger is coming from with little to add.

The issue behind these is to see that this is very much a staged provocation - but not so much at the Muslim world but at passive Europeans to gain support for the impending war in Iran.

--> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16678042&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=blair---british-troops-in-iran--we-can-never-say-never--name_page.html
(Tony Blair now says, Never say Never on attacking Iran)

Ask yourself these questions:
1. As before you likely opposed an Iraq invasion, might you now support an Iran invasion?

2. If that means that Iran has WMD (laughably, that might be the reason) would you support an invasion? Even if that means that the evidence is lacking as before

3. If there is an attack on a western country/building and the blame is placed (by the same media let me add) on a Muslim terrorist group , will you support an attack on Iran?

4. Do you view Muslims now as more backward and primitive? Are they as enlightened as us in the West?

5. If a foreign government was threatening our government and mocking us, and showing us how even the public media was poking fun at our religion - which is all we have really as we've been invaded over and over again for centuries, would you be angry? WOuld you storm the GPO with guns? Would you bomb that foreign nations capital and surrounding cities?



W

constitutionus

illegalheadbutt wrote:

If a non-believer says something contrary to the those beliefs and offends a believer, surely the cause of offense is on the believer’s end.

You have a right to hold an opinion you want, but others only have an obligation to respect that opinion as long as it’s well supported. I think a failure to acknowledge this is at the root of the current problem

ok heres an analogy

im a racist biggot: i believe the problems of this country lie at the feet of the **** and we should round them all up and gas them and will actively do everything in my power to make this happen.

is the cause of offense on the end of people who feel strongly against this

the core of the muslim upset on this issue is it violates one of the ten commandments "i am the lord thy god ,thou shalt not have any other gods before me" basically IDOLATRY.
THATs why their pissed, by making an image of mohamed your effectively making him an idol and thats massively offensive to them. most people in the west DONT get this because in our religions idols are part of the deal, i mean can you imagine any church with out a crucifix? and it doesnt help when a secular culture tries to understand the offense by saying "well we've slagged off jesus, whats the difference?" the difference is a SECULAR society doesnt give a toss about jesus or any other religion therefore as an insult it doesnt resonate with the same impact

if secular cultures want to understand what offense muslims feel about this you have to attack something that THEY hold sacrosanct and in my eyes thats POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. the funny thing is secular societies hold political correctness on almost the same level as religious zeal,ANYONE that goes against the PC line is hit with almost facistic ferocity ironically not a million miles away from militant religous types who wont let anyone step out of line
we've heard an awfull lot about freedom of speech,and i cherish ist, but if you go back to my analogy at the top ,ANYONE that tried to broadcast or write such a thing would be arrested and charged with incitement to racial hatred along with any organisation that supported it.
the truth is in ireland we DONT have freedom of speech because in certain case's its against the law. and its againts the law because it could lead to civil unrest, bigotry, DEATH and so on.

no look whats happening in these muslim counties that have taken such offense to this. civil unrest, bigotry, and DEATH. ya dont need to be a genius to see the connection and if we regulate our media here for things WE hold sacrosanct i dont see why its such a huge leap to do the same thing for the muslim

at the end of the day its all about RESPECT. you want a multicultural society ya have to compromise:)

sceptre

illegalheadbutt wrote:

Discuss / Flame me / Make ad hominen attacks / Hijack the topic / Call me a bigot / Correct my grammar and spelling / Point me to link a were my argument is destroyed

I'm just going to move it to Humanities as even more so than the other threads this would be more at home there then where it was.

Syth

I recommend you watch Richard Dawkin's excellen 'The root of all evil?' documentaries that aired recently on Channel 4. You can probably download them via bittorrent. Channel 4 might sell DVDs of the 2 episode mini-series.

In it, Dawkin's claims that religion is harmful to mankind. He claims that all religion is based on a leap of faith without evidence, and a feverent belief that one's religion is totally correct. He claims this leads to all kinds of bad things, like suicide bombers and the discrimination of homosexuals. A good documentary.

Ivan

Wow, I'm must admit I agree completely with the OP. What an insightful comment.

In fairness constitutionus I think the problem with your analogy there is that you would be arrested for incitement of hatred/violence. If you just said "I dont like black people and I dont think anyone should", you would be fine.

Captain Trips wrote:

The islamic world likely does not have broadband and internet in such wide availability

Apart from the semi racist connotations there, I have to ask about the British/Irish/European Muslims who have all gotten angry over this. Many of whom would have broadband/access to news through television etc.

I believe illegalheadbutt sums it all up perfectly. The simultaneous fundamental flaw and greatest asset to religions are that they require blind faith. Hence you cant argue for or against it with any real sense of conviction other than what you "believe". Imagine I was to say that I think we should ban cars because I believe they cause people to die from athletes foot?

Sounds ridiculous doesnt it, but imagine I could present evidence that could neither be completely proved nor disproved. Conjecture if you will? No government could seriously attempt to make cars illegal with that sort of evidence and so you would have some people stop driving cars and others continue on regardless.

Apologies if I have insulted anyone with my complete disregard for your religious beliefs in my post but I'm afraid I dont share them

DadaKopf

illegalheadbutt wrote:

Most religions try to avoid arguing over the core ideas behind their religions. Instead they have a tendency to hide behind dogma and unfounded supposedly “self-evident” axioms. As a result of this they are incapable of convincing people via logic people that their views/beliefs are correct. Religious belief requires a leap of faith.

The problem with such a leap of faith is that this will not convince non-believers of the truth behind the claims of the believer. Non-believers will still see those beliefs as ill founded, since they have not been given conclusive evidence that those beliefs are correct. Non-believers in the absence of conclusive evidence have nothing to stop them from assuming those beliefs to be false. If someone holds a false belief why should anyone be required to respect it? If a non-believer says something contrary to the those beliefs and offends a believer, surely the cause of offense is on the believer’s end.

You have a right to hold an opinion you want, but others only have an obligation to respect that opinion as long as it’s well supported. I think a failure to acknowledge this is at the root of the current problems.


Discuss / Flame me / Make ad hominen attacks / Hijack the topic / Call me a bigot / Correct my grammar and spelling / Point me to link a were my argument is destroyed

Jaysus. You know these cartoons were drawn 5 months ago. The one in question is one of a handful that weren't, which were leaked to Arab Muslim groups.

Islamic groups in Europe and some cities in the Arab world lodged their objection through legitimate channels, but they weren't listened to (whether their expectations or ideas about politics in Europe were realistic is another issue). A whole 5 months later, mass, incendiary protests occur. (And where have the riots taken place - in a region on fire with American, British and Israeli aggression.)

What we over here conveniently miss out on is what we're now seeing is a climax of discontent set in motion 5 months ago. But the cartoon is interpreted by Muslims as yet another cultural assault on the Arab Muslim world, which is itself underpinned by over 80 years of Western political, economic and military domination of the region, which has caused widespread poverty and understandable anger. And, yes, this anger is also aimed at Arabs' own governments/elites who are sponsored by the West for selfish political-economic interests.

So I'd say that trying to get to "the root" of this abstract debate, while interesting and necessary (although I don't agree with your terms of debate), is an unhelpful distraction from what's really going on and an unhelpful mischaracterisation of politics in the Middle East as medieval, backward, uncivilised when it's far from that.

But about your question on 'true' versus 'false' belief and on respecting them, I'd consider open dialogue to be the key. I'd say people have a right to identity and beliefs (incidentally, this is human rights law), but the way you frame the debate only serves to characterise yourself as 'rational' and civilised, and the other as 'irrational', superstitious, uncivilised. This is the opposite of open dialogue. And it's this which has provoked the riots.

Catsmokinpot

nice posts DadaKopf and constitutionus i could post something but i would only be repeating what you said

Dades

"The islamic world likely does not have broadband and internet in such wide availability"

Ivan wrote:

Apart from the semi racist connotations there, I have to ask about the British/Irish/European Muslims who have all gotten angry over this. Many of whom would have broadband/access to news through television etc.

QED constitutionus' PC point.

The fact is, that the majority of Islam-heavy countries are part of the second, if not third world. Hence it is nothing but logical to assume that your average muslim has less access to broadband internet. The suggestion that this is somehow racist is dispairing.

But there are some great posts on this thread.

DadaKopf

Regardless of broadband access in the Arab world, which continues to be marginal for most (there's much more access in cities), Arabs are generally well informed about politics through more traditional mass media, especially newspapers and, increasingly, satellite television.

This is borne out by the fact that what the Western media likes to term disparagingly, the 'Arab street' is actually a lively and active site of pluralist political expression and discourse. In some ways, the Arab street replaces the concept of the 'Arab mind' used by colonialists and cold warriors to refer to the 'uncivilised' Middle East, but 'Arab street' is actually the product of a mushrooming of media access combined with increased political repression by Middle Eastern ruling regimes.

It's in fact a healthy development.

Captain Trips

Okay, I didn't mean it like they are primitive buffoons, they have a totally different method of informing themselves, I'm just willing to bet it isn't FOx News, Sky News or Star TV, the Star, the Sun and so on.

On broadband, it is ubiquitous in the west as is access to alternative news opinions.

constitutionus

there is also the cultural thing as well. going out on the streets and burning flags and shooting guns is how these countries demonstrate. you notice there HASNT been the same thing going on in europe even though i reckon there's the same level of hurt. if memory serves there was a demo here recently over this by irish muslims and as far as i know it went off peacefully and with dignity.
different cultures react to express their disatisfaction differently. we (ireland) usually get pissed and moan about it in the bar (no point marching the gov dont listen to anything except the ballot box result) . the french blockade the ports/boarders and shut the country down and/or riot given the occasion. the brits used to steal and confiscate stuff (like the french lamb thing in the 90's) and burn it and the yank usually invade somewhere:D (only kidding) but you get my point

Personally I view this as a bid to take the high moral ground.

The Arab community worldwide has been targeted with claims and investigations regarding terrorism for the last two/three years. They've been subjected to a wave of distrust by many people, after Sept 11, then Afghanistan, then Iraq, the troubles in Britain & France, and now Iran. And they've been unable to do much about it. They're feeling a little bit victimised and this was a perfect opportunity to try turn the tables.

By creating an uproar about these cartoons, they could point the finger at the west, and try to make them the bad boy. They could unite the majority of muslim faiths in a common anger that would bind them together. Its posturing in the extreme with the aim of discrediting the west, with the educated muslims.

And its all so bloody stupid. For over a decade of my life I've seen worse cartoons representing characters in the North. In some cases, political or "spiritual" leaders were featured. In other cases, God himself may be displayed. I've also seen books which basically make a mockery of the catholic religion.

Joking about religion is nothing new, but in this world of the ultra PC generation, how long before some western countries ban such joking. religion is too serious as it is, and these idiots are making things worse. They take themselves to seriously as it is...........

constitutionus

Deleted User wrote:

Joking about religion is nothing new, but in this world of the ultra PC generation, how long before some western countries ban such joking. religion is too serious as it is, and these idiots are making things worse. They take themselves to seriously as it is...........

havent the brits tried to do this already i seem to remember comedians protesting about this very issues sometime in november 05. rowan atkinson in particular who said entire episodes of black adder would never be allowed to be shown on telly again.

personally i dont relish the idea of father ted being banned. considering whats passing for comedy these days (dont get me started on the office) the reruns of FT are the only things keeping me going sometimes:D

DadaKopf

Deleted User wrote:

Personally I view this as a bid to take the high moral ground.

The Arab community worldwide has been targeted with claims and investigations regarding terrorism for the last two/three years. They've been subjected to a wave of distrust by many people, after Sept 11, then Afghanistan, then Iraq, the troubles in Britain & France, and now Iran. And they've been unable to do much about it. They're feeling a little bit victimised and this was a perfect opportunity to try turn the tables.

By creating an uproar about these cartoons, they could point the finger at the west, and try to make them the bad boy. They could unite the majority of muslim faiths in a common anger that would bind them together. Its posturing in the extreme with the aim of discrediting the west, with the educated muslims.

And its all so bloody stupid. For over a decade of my life I've seen worse cartoons representing characters in the North. In some cases, political or "spiritual" leaders were featured. In other cases, God himself may be displayed. I've also seen books which basically make a mockery of the catholic religion.

Joking about religion is nothing new, but in this world of the ultra PC generation, how long before some western countries ban such joking. religion is too serious as it is, and these idiots are making things worse. They take themselves to seriously as it is...........

I wonder to what extent the Middle Eastern regimes, kept by the West, are encouraging and channelling the region's anger for their own purposes of maintaining political legitimacy.

I wonder to what extent the Middle Eastern regimes, kept by the West, are encouraging and channelling the region's anger for their own purposes of maintaining political legitimacy.

I'd suggest its better for these governments to point peoples anger at the west than have them focusing on trouble at home. But then again as anger towards the west increases so too does the anger at their governments involvement with the west.

I'd suggest that its the actual religious leaders and groups that are fueling this anger. The more anger, the more power the religious factions gain.

Personally, I wouldn't be suprised to see some form of coalition of Arab states being formed after a little bit. A mix of a military, economic and religious association. That would certainly get the juices flowing... I wonder how the west would view a coalition of Arab states unwilling to be taken piece meal for western democracy & freedom.