[Vision2020] Death threats over religious cartoons?
Art Deco
deco at moscow.com
Wed Feb 1 08:48:03 PST 2006
Phil,
Here's an answer to question broader than you asked. I have said most of it
before on this forum, probably ad nauseum. I hope it clarifies for you and
corrects some of the apparent misconceptions you have of my and others
position on cultural diversity and similar topics.
For me, tolerance begins with allowing a person or group to express their
ideas in any legal format and sometimes, though maybe not locally legal, as
was/is the case, for example, in the civil rights struggle, in any
constitutionally sanctioned manner.
Likewise, anyone can respond to those assertions/opinions in the same
manner.
I hope the above is clear, or as Melynda would say, pellucid.
As for apologies, the only apologies that matter is when person or
organization finds they have been in error, and as a result, unjustifiable
harm has been inflicted. As for the Daily News, the apologies they need to
make is for their failure to report on some matters factually, in a balanced
manner, and/or the use of false information as a basis for an editorial
columns/comments (which seems to happen frequently lately).
As for Islam and tolerance: I do not lump all those that practice Islam
into the same category. There many different views held within Islam. The
same is true for Christianity, Judaism, etc.
It may come as a surprise to you, but I taught the Philosophy of Religion
class at the UI when I was a graduate student in math in the late 1960s.
The student evaluations for that class were very high (3.75+ out of 4.0),
although one religious sect attempt to prevent their members from taking
that class (or any) from me because of the number of apostates it created.
[That practice continued when I taught a variety of math, business, and
philosophy courses in the early 1990s at the UI.]
As a counter-example to your assumption that I treat certain Islamic beliefs
different from the screeds egesting from the CCC, I have said on list
before: I find the practice of clitorectomy by either Islamites or others
to be egregiously barbaric without any credible justification, and within
this country strongly advocate for and support laws which mandate very long
prison terms for any who practice it. I also support very strong worldwide
efforts to abolish the practice. Is this religious intolerance?
I do not support terrorism. In fact, one of the main pragmatic arguments
against revealed religion over the ages is their use/support of terrorism,
torture, and/or other horridly coercive measures to achieve certain of their
goals. Is this religious intolerance?
I do not support but, in fact, decry, any religion which promotes racism,
homophobia, sexism, theocracy, covenantal dishonesty, imposition of their
religious beliefs and practices on nonbelievers, etc, etc. Is this
religious intolerance?
If the answer to any of the above three questions is "Yes!", then I am proud
and elated to be intolerant. [Watch for Comb-Over Courtney to use the last
eight words of the last sentence clipped from the whole sentence and/or from
context in some dishonest way.]
Does that mean that I think everything that various religions advocate is
wrong? No. For example, as different in worldview that Keely's, Saundra's,
and Rose's outlooks are from mine, there is a large community of ethical
proscriptions we share. And some we don't. The difference between us lies
in the methods of belief fixation and some of the actual reasons for
believing in those ethical proscriptions.
It is peculiar that you should ask me the questions you did. I thought it
would be clear by now that I attempt to evaluate beliefs on the bases of
best known to me probabilities, probable consequences, and heuristic
considerations. In my opinion, truth about the universe is found by
investigation, not reliance on any non-verifiable superstition or
supernatural belief -- in fact, reliance on such superstitious nonsense is
counterproductive/totally inimical to truth-seeking, in my opinion.
When it comes to criticizing/commenting upon any religion such as Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, etc, and/or any other political/social/economic belief
systems, I am an equal opportunity critic and I make no apology for it
what-so-ever. My criticisms are based in part on logical and
epistemological analyses and in part on the consequences to those that
believe certain doctrines and the consequences to others of the believer's
belief in those doctrines, especially if believers use their supernatural
beliefs/superstitions to impose behavioral practices and/or restrictions on
others, especially by deceit or coercion. [Yes, that last sentence could be
improved greatly.]
Do I have friends that are religious? Yes. Some are very religious. With
most we can argue about/comment/etc on the differences in our worldviews.
However, those religious people that are my friends do not, except sometimes
very mildly, proselytize their supernatural beliefs with me, although they
certainly do some of their ethical beliefs. Example: some Jewish friends
generally believe in and advocate for the last six of the so-called Ten
Commandments. They do not so advocate for the first four, outside their own
fellow believers, if that. [Remember, by bloodline, I am half Jewish, but
not by doctrine,]
Will I continue to criticize/comment upon revealed religion and its
consequences? Yes. And rabidly. Look for some more interesting material
on the CCC soon, especially about their egregious deviance from clear
Christian doctrines.
I cannot hope to affect worldwide Islam, Mormonism, etc, but I may have some
small impact on the consequences of the beliefs and actions of the
(Anti)Christ Church Cult here in Moscow.
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
deco at moscow.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Nisbet" <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com>
To: <deco at moscow.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Death threats over religious cartoons?
> Wayne
>
> Open discourse can include drawing cartoons which may not be complimentry
> to the religion of another person. When that is the case, the worst that
> can happen to you are the standard idle threats. This is significantly
> different than having a fatwah issued calling for all good Muslims to kill
> you on sight or for holy warriors to drive car bombs into the building
> that publishes your paper.
>
> In all the concern I have seen that government and religion not mix, where
> has anybody been with regards to the Islamic Student website calling for
> and promiting conversion to Islam? If any Christian group was promoting
> religion on campus using Student activity funds we would hear holy hell
> about it.
>
> When gays are hanged in Iran from construction craines, why the blind eye?
> When they stone women to death for adultry or stone young girls to death
> for flirting, where is the outrage?
>
> The thing is Wayne, you are wiling to accept Islamic folks actions that
> are ten times worse than the CCers ever thought about being because
> accepting them is a mark of your acceptance of cultural diversity. If you
> go out on a lmb and call their practices into the same kind of question
> that you do people of more typical American religious views, you woud be
> marked as a bigot.
>
> Doug Wilson may say he thinks Gays wil go to hell and he can even say he
> thiks they should be stoned, but he will never have such power here.
> Islamic Courts have the power to stone gays to death and use it. Wilson
> and company can only get following by convincing people to follow their
> faith and stay with their church something that does not exactly make them
> a growth industry from what I have seen to date. The Islamic clerics in
> one heck of a lot of countries have complete power to not only police
> their own folks, they have the right to condemn to death any person of
> another religions who they deem has caste a slander on their faith.
>
> Christians are not slughtering us who are not of their faith, but Islamic
> Clerics are. Tens of thousands of people are being murdered every year by
> Islamic religious courts and by their overzealous adherents. Not one peep
> do I hear about the civil rights violation that that entails.
>
> So seeing the Danes scramble to give an apology that they would never dain
> to give to any Christian or Jewish Group is interesting to me. If our
> local paper were to run a cartoon of the Prophet with a bomb for a hat,
> would there be threats that the Daily News would be blown to smitherens?
> Would you recommend that the Daily News Apologize for running such a
> cartoon?
>
> Just wondering.
>
> Phil
>>From: "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com>
>>To: "Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Death threats over religious cartoons?
>>Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:26:17 -0800
>>
>>Phil,
>>
>>There is hardly anything of substance spoke/written/drawn/etc on
>>political, economic, social, and/or religious matters that will not offend
>>someone. Just reading this list over a period of time and the reactions to
>>various points of view should provide any reader with tons of proof of
>>such an assertion.
>>
>>Even the most civil conversations on these matters can offend some. That
>>is the nature of human discourse, and it will continue for a variety of
>>reasons, seeking truth, manipulating others, asserting power,
>>exhibiting/protecting egotism just to name a few.
>>
>>That is why living in a country with freedom of expression is, for me, and
>>I expect for you, one of life's greatest blessings.
>>
>>I can tell you that during the times I taught philosophy at the UI and
>>actually during the semester I taught MIS in the College of Business, I
>>received all kinds of threats, not to mention other related problems to
>>deal with. That also is the nature of discussing/exploring ontological
>>problems.
>>
>>At his point in time no one owns the truth. Many of us are sincerely
>>trying to make a tiny bit of progress toward a better understanding of the
>>universe, others not. Open discourse, which is certainly offensive to
>>some, is one of the most important tools in those attempts at progress.
>>
>>W.
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Nisbet" <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com>
>>To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 6:23 PM
>>Subject: [Vision2020] Death threats over religious cartoons?
>>
>>
>>>I was wondering if those really really POed at Wilson and company had
>>>read this particular controversy? If one of our publications prints a
>>>cartoon that Islamic folks do not like are we liable to attack on that
>>>basis?
>>>
>>>By JAN M. OLSEN, Associated Press Writer
>>>Tue Jan 31, 5:38 PM ET
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>COPENHAGEN, Denmark - A Danish Muslim group Tuesday accepted an apology
>>>from a newspaper that published offensive cartoons of the Prophet
>>>Muhammad but said later that it had decided the statement was ambiguous.
>>>
>>>The group did not elaborate and it was unclear if there would be any
>>>effect on protests and boycotts of Danish goods in Muslim countries.
>>>
>>>The offices of the newspaper Jyllands-Posten were briefly evacuated
>>>Tuesday evening after an English-speaking person called in a bomb threat
>>>to the switchboard, and an Internet statement purportedly from insurgents
>>>in Iraq urged attacks in Denmark and Norway, the first known call for
>>>violent reprisals over the cartoons.
>>>
>>>The authenticity of the Internet posting in the name of the Mujahedeen
>>>Army, which claimed to have shot down a U.S. helicopter in Iraq earlier
>>>this month, could not be independently verified.
>>>
>>>Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons in September after asking artists
>>>to depict Islam's prophet in what was described as a test of
>>>self-censorship. The depictions included incendiary images such as
>>>Muhammad wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse.
>>>
>>>A Norwegian newspaper reprinted the images this month.
>>>
>>>In a statement published late Monday, Jyllands-Posten apologized and said
>>>it regretted offending Muslims. It stood by the decision to print the
>>>cartoons, saying it was within Danish law.
>>>
>>>The drawings "were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at
>>>variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many
>>>Muslims for which we apologize," the daily said Monday.
>>>
>>>Danish Muslims said Tuesday that they welcomed the apology. However, 27
>>>Muslim groups met later in the day to discuss the statement and declared
>>>it "ambiguous."
>>>
>>>"We lack a clear statement where the newspaper apologizes for the offense
>>>and stand by it," said Ahmed Akkari, a spokesman for the groups.
>>>
>>>The Danish Muslims thanked Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen for
>>>saying Monday evening that his government could not apologize on behalf
>>>of a newspaper, but that he personally "never would have depicted
>>>Muhammad, Jesus or any other religious character in a way that could
>>>offend other people."
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
>>>http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>>>
>>>_____________________________________________________
>>>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
>>>communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
>>>mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_____________________________________________________
>>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
>>communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
>>mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list