Religion of Peace?

Religion of Peace?

Anonymous
Anonymous

February 7th, 2006, 11:01 pm #1

Religions can be assessed by their official writings and by their public manifestations. Sometimes the two are closely correlated, sometimes not. Mormonism teaches that it's wrong to swear, and I've never heard a foul word from a Mormon. Quakers teach non-violence, and I've never heard of a Quaker being arrested for starting a brawl. But what about Islam?

Ever since September 11, leaders of state and Church have been assuring us that "Islam is a religion of peace," even though certain passages of the Koran are difficult to square with that idea and even though Islam's historical expansion has been primarily through conquest and not through uncoerced conversion.

Many people think these leaders have been paying insufficient attention to how theoretical Islam gets translated into practical Islam. Take, for example, the reactions to the cartoons published in Denmark. The cartoons certainly were in bad taste, and it's understandable that Muslims would be ticked off by them, but there's a difference between being ticked off and advocating retaliatory murder.

At her blog, columnist Michelle Malkin has photographs of Muslim demonstrators in London. The signs they are holding are not the sort you might expect to find in the hands of Hare Krishnas who are upset that their religion has been lampooned:

"Freedom Go to Hell"; "Be Prepared for the Real Holocaust"; "Europe, You Will Pay; Your 9/11 Is on Its Way"; "Behead Those Who Insult Islam"; "Butcher Those Who Mock Islam"; "Exterminate Those Who Slander Islam"; "Annihilate Those Who Insult Islam"; "As Muslims We Unite & Are Prepared to Fight"; "This Is the Beginning of the End for You Disbelievers."

Not exactly consoling stuff. See:
www.michellemalkin.com
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

February 8th, 2006, 12:39 am #2

every day something strange comes up!!
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

February 8th, 2006, 1:09 am #3

yeah
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

February 8th, 2006, 1:29 am #4

Religions can be assessed by their official writings and by their public manifestations. Sometimes the two are closely correlated, sometimes not. Mormonism teaches that it's wrong to swear, and I've never heard a foul word from a Mormon. Quakers teach non-violence, and I've never heard of a Quaker being arrested for starting a brawl. But what about Islam?

Ever since September 11, leaders of state and Church have been assuring us that "Islam is a religion of peace," even though certain passages of the Koran are difficult to square with that idea and even though Islam's historical expansion has been primarily through conquest and not through uncoerced conversion.

Many people think these leaders have been paying insufficient attention to how theoretical Islam gets translated into practical Islam. Take, for example, the reactions to the cartoons published in Denmark. The cartoons certainly were in bad taste, and it's understandable that Muslims would be ticked off by them, but there's a difference between being ticked off and advocating retaliatory murder.

At her blog, columnist Michelle Malkin has photographs of Muslim demonstrators in London. The signs they are holding are not the sort you might expect to find in the hands of Hare Krishnas who are upset that their religion has been lampooned:

"Freedom Go to Hell"; "Be Prepared for the Real Holocaust"; "Europe, You Will Pay; Your 9/11 Is on Its Way"; "Behead Those Who Insult Islam"; "Butcher Those Who Mock Islam"; "Exterminate Those Who Slander Islam"; "Annihilate Those Who Insult Islam"; "As Muslims We Unite & Are Prepared to Fight"; "This Is the Beginning of the End for You Disbelievers."

Not exactly consoling stuff. See:
www.michellemalkin.com
Bad taste? Huh! those cartoons had nothing on the one of Israels PM eating babies with blood drooling down to his chest.
If anything those cartoons were at best cheeky.
Anyone else would've laughed it off but no, so called "Religion of Peace" followers just had to extend their 15 minutes in the spotlight.
Quote
Share

Anon
Anon

February 8th, 2006, 1:50 am #5

yeah
Exactly, what did Mohammed do for Muslims?....what sort of saviour is he????
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

February 8th, 2006, 3:53 am #6

its pointless mate..don't waste yuor breath on mohamed
Quote
Share

Dan Abrams)
Dan Abrams)

February 8th, 2006, 5:09 am #7

Religions can be assessed by their official writings and by their public manifestations. Sometimes the two are closely correlated, sometimes not. Mormonism teaches that it's wrong to swear, and I've never heard a foul word from a Mormon. Quakers teach non-violence, and I've never heard of a Quaker being arrested for starting a brawl. But what about Islam?

Ever since September 11, leaders of state and Church have been assuring us that "Islam is a religion of peace," even though certain passages of the Koran are difficult to square with that idea and even though Islam's historical expansion has been primarily through conquest and not through uncoerced conversion.

Many people think these leaders have been paying insufficient attention to how theoretical Islam gets translated into practical Islam. Take, for example, the reactions to the cartoons published in Denmark. The cartoons certainly were in bad taste, and it's understandable that Muslims would be ticked off by them, but there's a difference between being ticked off and advocating retaliatory murder.

At her blog, columnist Michelle Malkin has photographs of Muslim demonstrators in London. The signs they are holding are not the sort you might expect to find in the hands of Hare Krishnas who are upset that their religion has been lampooned:

"Freedom Go to Hell"; "Be Prepared for the Real Holocaust"; "Europe, You Will Pay; Your 9/11 Is on Its Way"; "Behead Those Who Insult Islam"; "Butcher Those Who Mock Islam"; "Exterminate Those Who Slander Islam"; "Annihilate Those Who Insult Islam"; "As Muslims We Unite & Are Prepared to Fight"; "This Is the Beginning of the End for You Disbelievers."

Not exactly consoling stuff. See:
www.michellemalkin.com
In Webster's dictionary one definition of cartoon is quote—“a ludicrously simplistic, unrealistic, or one-dimensional portrayal or version.”

Unrealistic. Ludicrous. So how do fringe elements of one religion turn a cartoon into an international uproar? A call to arms so great that even the unusually unwavering U.S. media is now unwilling to broadcast the cartoons that generated the news?

Four months after a Danish newspaper first published cartoons of the Islamic prophet Mohammed, one of which depicted him with a turban shaped like a bomb, violent protests have erupted in Lebanon and Syria, the Danish embassy in Beirut has been burned, and a Lebanese Christian neighborhood destroyed over the weekend. On Monday, troops in Afghanistan opened fire on demonstrators, killing at least four. In Somalia, a stampede killed a teenager. In Iraq, protesters called for the death of anyone who insults Mohammed. In Iran, the Danish and Austrian embassies were hit with Molotov cocktails by protesters.


Now all of us in the media here in the United States are rightly afraid of what impact showing these cartoons could have. Freedom of the press is a nice principle, but if it‘s going to lead to people being hurt or killed, it can and should cloud one’s journalistic judgment. I am not surprised that media outlets--including this one--are not broadcasting the cartoons in question. But free press is not the point here. Why don‘t we see protests like this when terrorists impugn the prophet Mohammed by killing civilians and then claiming it was done in his name? Not since a later-retracted piece in “Newsweek” magazine reported about a Koran being flushed down the toilet by American interrogators at Guantanamo has the press been so scapegoated. There, some blamed “Newsweek” for more than a dozen deaths among protesters.

Now the Danish and other European editors who printed the cartoons are taking the heat. And CARTOON FURY
• U.S. cartoonists weigh in on the controversy

while it seems some bad decisions were made, let‘s be clear--in both cases, the violence stems from extremism. We‘re talking about caricatures, much like the ones that regularly appear in the Arab press demeaning Jews.

The Anti-Defamation League releases a list every month of anti-semitic cartoons, which appear in the Arab press. Not to mention how Christ, the Virgin Mary and other symbols sacred to Christians are sometimes mocked. Look at the animated series “South Park,” for example.

Cartoons are caricatures. That doesn‘t mean they‘re funny or appropriate. But let‘s not lose our focus on what this is about. It‘s an excuse, a way for a few to take advantage of the deeply held religious views of many others.

Email Sidebar@msnbc.com
Quote
Share

Praying Manthis-
Praying Manthis-

February 8th, 2006, 5:17 am #8

Cartoon of Mohamed shows a lack of Disrespect to islams.
Westerners say its freedom of expression,but yet Denmark Netherland etc are some of the European countries who want to ban muslim women from wearing scarf(head gown/veil) there.But that is freedom of exression,muslim expressing their faith in islam.
The bristish tabloid reported yesterday that the Denmark newspaper responsible for that provoking cartoon was gonna print one with jesus christ but hestitated coz they didnot want to offend Christians....
Hmmmm now we know Denish paper acted deliberately to provoke,,,,all based on lies..
Quote
Share

(Joe Scarborough)
(Joe Scarborough)

February 8th, 2006, 5:27 am #9


Is it just me or are you getting fed up with the news coverage of these cartoon riots in the Middle East?

Being politically correct is one thing, but giving a free pass to these radicals is just irresponsible. Isn’t it time news commentators and other reasoned souls across the world started calling these people the freaks that they are?

They are, after all, burning down buildings because a cartoon suggested that Islam has become a religion associated with bombings.

Oh, Gee. Stop the presses.

And while we’re at it, let’s stop lying about how Muslim radicals are a small, misguided group of violent renegades who have perverted the true meaning of Islam.

I actually believed that Urban Media Legend until Palestinian election results handed Hamas a landslide victory. Hamas is, after all, an ultra-violent terrorist organization who has spent the last decade blowing up little children at bus stops and grandmoms in public markets.

And through it all, Western commentators keep blaming US foreign policy for these thugs' murderous acts.

Time Magazine predictably suggested Arab rioters have turned on us because of Iraq.

Huh?

I thought we went into Iraq after 19 Muslim extremists killed 3,000 innocent Americans on September 11th.

And after Muslim extremists killed American troops aboard the USS Cole.

And after Muslim extremists killed American troops at Khobar Towers.

And I was just sure those African Embassies were blown up by Muslim radicals before we went into Iraq.

And unless I am really getting my dates confused, I thought Muslim radicals also tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993--a full decade before we ousted Saddam Hussein.

Come to think of it, radical Muslims have been trying to kill Americans for a long time. These freaks hated Americans long before George W. Bush first stepped into the Oval Office. And they will still be trying to kill us all long after Bush has gone back to Texas. So don’t try the Blame Bush First game with me.

It’s not about Iraq.

So if these riots and killings have nothing to do with Iraq, it must be Israel’s fault. Right?

I mean, we’ve always been told that if Israel would only give the Palestinians their own state, Arab resentment would fade away. But now we learn that the more the Israeli leaders offer the Palestinians, the more the Palestinians seem to want to kill the Jews.

After Sharon turned over Gaza over to the Palestinians, the Palestinians turned their future over to a bloody terrorist group whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel.

Meanwhile, Muslims across the world riot away over a cartoon that is disrespectful to their religion. They show their displeasure by vandalizing a Catholic Church.

With their track record on tolerance, these extremists should be on their knees praying for forgiveness instead of in the streets burning down buildings.

They have no right to be offended by events of the past month.

We do.

So why aren’t we?
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

February 8th, 2006, 5:34 am #10

Religions can be assessed by their official writings and by their public manifestations. Sometimes the two are closely correlated, sometimes not. Mormonism teaches that it's wrong to swear, and I've never heard a foul word from a Mormon. Quakers teach non-violence, and I've never heard of a Quaker being arrested for starting a brawl. But what about Islam?

Ever since September 11, leaders of state and Church have been assuring us that "Islam is a religion of peace," even though certain passages of the Koran are difficult to square with that idea and even though Islam's historical expansion has been primarily through conquest and not through uncoerced conversion.

Many people think these leaders have been paying insufficient attention to how theoretical Islam gets translated into practical Islam. Take, for example, the reactions to the cartoons published in Denmark. The cartoons certainly were in bad taste, and it's understandable that Muslims would be ticked off by them, but there's a difference between being ticked off and advocating retaliatory murder.

At her blog, columnist Michelle Malkin has photographs of Muslim demonstrators in London. The signs they are holding are not the sort you might expect to find in the hands of Hare Krishnas who are upset that their religion has been lampooned:

"Freedom Go to Hell"; "Be Prepared for the Real Holocaust"; "Europe, You Will Pay; Your 9/11 Is on Its Way"; "Behead Those Who Insult Islam"; "Butcher Those Who Mock Islam"; "Exterminate Those Who Slander Islam"; "Annihilate Those Who Insult Islam"; "As Muslims We Unite & Are Prepared to Fight"; "This Is the Beginning of the End for You Disbelievers."

Not exactly consoling stuff. See:
www.michellemalkin.com
Vatican, Feb. 06 (CWNews.com) - In an official statement regarding the controversy over publication of cartoons mocking Islam, the Vatican has said that freedom of speech "cannot imply the right to offend the religious sentiments of believers." The Vatican statement, issued on February 4, goes on to say that "coexistence calls for a climate of mutual respect."

Although it does not explicitly mention the cartoons that have become the basis for an international controversy, the statement from the Holy See condemns "exasperated criticisms or derision of others." Such an approach would be an "inadmissible provocation," the statement says.

In a subtle rebuke to Islamic militants, however, the Vatican statement goes on to argue that "the offenses caused by an individual or a member of the press cannot be imputed to the public institutions of the corresponding country," adding that "violent actions of protest are equally deplorable." "Real or verbal intolerance, no matter where it comes from, whether as action or reaction, is always a serious threat to peace," the statement concludes.

In a February 6 conversation with the Roman news agency I Media, Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald said that Christian and Islamic leaders alike should seek to reduce the tensions roused by the controversy. The president of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue said that the murder of an Italian priest serving in Turkey was another indication of the need for "serious reflection on the respect due to religious values in all societies."

"We all bear the responsibility" for decreasing tensions, the archbishop said. He said that Christian leaders could readily understand the dismay that Muslims felt about the cartoons, adding that "freedom of expression must be used responsibly." At the same time, he said, the reaction from the Islamic world has been disproportionate.
Quote
Share