could we claim prematurely as was done in the Arizona shooting and fort hood shooting that surely inflammatory rhetoric espoused by extremist groups played a part in this killing or do offending actions by lone gunman warrant only a tag of mental instability as the cardinal reason?
my point is not that muslims are in any way special when it comes to this reaction, but it should preclude anyone from being critical of violent reactions to non-violent criticism,
the example you provided was an unfair comparison. there have been no murders reported of journalists expressing strong views against veterans in the US.
a more apt comparison would be that we saw no attempted murders of the ultra-radical Christians who attend US soldiers funerals with signs claiming they were killed because homosexuality is rampant in america. anger and possible assault yes, but murders or mass protests and firebombings of affiliated churches no.
most would agree there is a long history of religious violence from a host of beliefs, does that mean on the whole that drawing cartoons and being the subject of violent threats is somehow warranted or acceptable because its so common to other faiths?
as noted these cartoons are criticisms of the lowest form, crude and insulting, but are we to suggest the authors in some way had it coming akin to a gay iranian on the streets of theran that should hide his orientation, never challanging an oppresive status quo which uses violence to enforce archaic rules?
I really enjoy your site Juan, its part of my daily reads.
I disagree with you on this particular issue in that while offensive and childish, your comparison of offending veterans is considerably off the mark. There is a distinct difference between publishing cartoons offensive to muslims in a european or north american newspaper vs. appearing at a mosque or a muslim cultural event and displaying such images.
much the same way countless people (artists not exlcuded) have made comments against veterans both living and dead and suffered little or no physical threats against their life, least of all suffer the fate of a theo van gough.
while it is understandable that people of any religious sentiment may become enraged at insults to their faith, and we should always preach objective and respectful discourse, we must not forget that as ignorant as these cartoons are, the violent overtones of the offended are equally sickening.
could we claim prematurely as was done in the Arizona shooting and fort hood shooting that surely inflammatory rhetoric espoused by extremist groups played a part in this killing or do offending actions by lone gunman warrant only a tag of mental instability as the cardinal reason?
thank you for the response Juan,
my point is not that muslims are in any way special when it comes to this reaction, but it should preclude anyone from being critical of violent reactions to non-violent criticism,
the example you provided was an unfair comparison. there have been no murders reported of journalists expressing strong views against veterans in the US.
a more apt comparison would be that we saw no attempted murders of the ultra-radical Christians who attend US soldiers funerals with signs claiming they were killed because homosexuality is rampant in america. anger and possible assault yes, but murders or mass protests and firebombings of affiliated churches no.
most would agree there is a long history of religious violence from a host of beliefs, does that mean on the whole that drawing cartoons and being the subject of violent threats is somehow warranted or acceptable because its so common to other faiths?
as noted these cartoons are criticisms of the lowest form, crude and insulting, but are we to suggest the authors in some way had it coming akin to a gay iranian on the streets of theran that should hide his orientation, never challanging an oppresive status quo which uses violence to enforce archaic rules?
I really enjoy your site Juan, its part of my daily reads.
I disagree with you on this particular issue in that while offensive and childish, your comparison of offending veterans is considerably off the mark. There is a distinct difference between publishing cartoons offensive to muslims in a european or north american newspaper vs. appearing at a mosque or a muslim cultural event and displaying such images.
much the same way countless people (artists not exlcuded) have made comments against veterans both living and dead and suffered little or no physical threats against their life, least of all suffer the fate of a theo van gough.
while it is understandable that people of any religious sentiment may become enraged at insults to their faith, and we should always preach objective and respectful discourse, we must not forget that as ignorant as these cartoons are, the violent overtones of the offended are equally sickening.