Response to Philo:

I think you are confusing Yabby with Plantagenet, who did not mention fundamentalist christians. All I am trying to do is explain Plantagenet's argument. I don't buy into it myself, but it cannot be dismissed lightly. If expressed well, it should bury the idea of a peace-loving west and violent middle-east.

Yabby is talking about something else entirely. My post clearly indicates I am writing about Plantagenet and your good self.

The point about bombing embassies concerns Mister H, who cannot imagine others attacking embassies. Perhaps now he can. There is no justification for attacking an embassy or killing embassy staff.

While the subject is freedom of the Press, I cannot see any problem in clearing up certain matters along the way. My position on the subject is explained in my post of 9-Feb-06 12:31pm.

My response to your last post is to state the obvious: Ministers putting up cartoons on overhead projectors are not offending anyone. Kerry Nettle and Tony Abbott probably offend each other regularly, but that is a different debate. With reference to your question, there is no sanctury from personal responsibility because of the religious group one associates with.

David,
Thanks for clarifying that. Sorry Yabby for misrepresenting you. Yes it was planetagent that had made the initial post.

But for those that want to identify the West as Fundamentalist Christian they should be consistent. The West represents a diverse democracy encompasing many points of view and religions.

When Christians say the Reformed Christian influence upon the West has given us our personal freedoms, most OLO anti-Christian posts want to deny such an influence and classify the Christians as Totalitarian bullies. Planetagent in his/her last post indicates Fundamentalist Christians as the arch enemy of her/his position. You can see his/ her preference for a totalitarian atheistic society. We all need to accept we live in a democracy that has diverse conflicting views. Democracy is the struggle of opinions to retain balance of its citizens, and not give absolute power to only one opinion as it becomes ruthless in its opression and enforcement.

We might all like a State where everyone believes exactly as we do, but we live in a free society where robust debate on difference will take place. That is what Western Democracy represents. It has kept social balance upon those trying to impose a Totalitarian Government.

Unfortunately Premier Bracks has listened to the lobbying of Muslims to introduce the first stage of blasphemy shari'ah into Victoria to squash freedom of expression on religious debate and difference. We can see how it has caused division in religious communities. The Muslims are happy they have a tool to bash others who speak of their Prophet or religion in derogatory terms.

David

fine but are arab christians equal with arab muslims etc?

Philo

I don't mind moderate Christians nor moderate Muslims.

So I'm neither anti Christian nor anti Muslim.

My point is that FUNDAMENTALIST Christians and FUNDAMENTALIST Muslims are problem children because they believe the “literal word” of their respective old Books as they interpret them.

As the literal word is open to interpretation, schisms occur on the basis of differing interpretations.

Literal belief tends to make fundamentalists intolerant of other denominations (this is undeniable), religions, agnosticism and atheism.

You mentioned democracy. It derived from a number of influences including ancient Greece, as well as from the reformation and Long Parliament etc.

The vast majority of Westerners are not fundamentalist yet they support democracy and are tolerant.

Fundamentalism gives people certainty that what they are doing is morally correct - even when the majority believe they are wrong. Hence most Muslims would probably disagree with fundamentalist Muslim imams who may well have incited the firebombing of embassies.

My contention is that in the narrow instance where fundamentalist religion is tolerant this tolerance is patronising - along the lines "pity the ignorant because they haven't seen the way".

Yet despite their beliefs many fundamentalists have their heart in the right place (in my experience).

Strong religious convictions breed conflict and suffering. History proves this time and again.

That is why I (like many) don't see it as helpful to wear religion on my sleeve.

Pete

Great article.

I'm sad for muslims worldwide and I'm sad for the west.

Muslims are slowly digging a deeper hole for themselves. The fact that the cartoons had already been published without reaction in Egypt just shows the extent of the manipulation of muslims by muslims.

It is so easy to offend a muslim, that one could be forgiven for thinking that the whole cartoon affair was engineered by an anti muslim group wanting to add more fuel to the wave of Islamophobia.

Why are we not debateing far more ofensive anti Jewish/Christian cartoons pubished by goverment owned press in Islamist countrys?
Can ignoreing these cartoons, and highlighting others stop the slide to a dreadfull conflict?
Yes I too feel sorry for those of the Muslim faith who just wanted a better life.
But I too want to keep my culture and my beleafs and freedoms.
Truth is also a right.