shorbe,

I was with you to the last paragraph. Why? Because that such a depiction of the Muhammed idn Abdullah is considered blasphemy. Remember, please, we are dealing with a theistic society.

The creation of Islam was to unite the Arabs because of pressure (political and religious) from Sassid Persia and Byzantium. The Kabah was used as a centre of focus, because from antiquity, it had been a site of worship. The Nabatean deity, lived there, but moved out, before, Al-lah took-up shop.

Although, Germany was very advanced technologically, like Japan, its societal structured lagged way behind. Simply put, German people were accustomed to following orders. (Read Veblen, just after WWI) Moreover, Germany could not free itself from WWI reparations (Read HBR from the 1930s). These are some reasons -not excuses- for the NAZIs gaining power.

"I didn’t see fleurette calling for censorship, however nothing excuses the newspapers that published the cartoons for not using some restraint and sensitivity."

tao: Newspapers aren't meant to exercise restraint or sensitivity. Once you open that can of worms, just what can they publish without offending someone? What, are we Singapore now? I'm not saying there weren't political provocations involved here, but the point to freedom of speech is that we take the good with the bad, and then debate it. I can see how Christians might be pretty annoyed with society and the media generally running them down at every opportunity, but frankly, that's too bad for them also. It's too bad for any individual or group to take offence at freedom of speech.

As for not seeing fleurette calling for censorship (Tuesday, 12 September 2006 7:40:34 PM):

"Frankly as much as I advocate "freedom of speech" I'm pretty sure that the cartoon and it's anti Islamic sentiments further defy the conventions set out in the Declaration of Human Rights. So much in fact that it outweighs the "Freedom of speech" card. So pull another one."

Oliver: I understand the reasons for Nazi Germany's rise to power, but the "I was just following orders" argument doesn't wash.

Also, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by your first paragraph. Could you please restate it and/or elaborate? I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying, and space restraints prevent me from offering my different interpretations.

Shorbe,

"why is/are Islam/Muslims so fragile/special it/that they can't cop the usual heat every other political or religious ideology does?"

I was simply refering to your last paragraph. My reply: Islamic theocracy. Other religions have moved a long a bit or are no longer as strongly fused with their respective States. It is hard for these folk (Muslims) to cop it sweet.

As may know Veblen, felt that rapid development from a feudal society to an advanced society was a formula for trouble. Why do you think the Germans stood for Hilter?

- Simply, because Hilter had the guns?

If so, as is portrayed in a movie, why, did half the safes in NAZI Germany have Hiltler's birthday, as a combination? (I don't actually believe that proportion, but think you undrestand the point.

Shorbe,

I still don’t see how fleurette is calling for censorship.

You say you’re not ruling out political provocation – very reasonable of you – but what if it was?

If it was a case of anti-Islamic bigots, with the power of a daily newspaper, attempting to portray Muslims and their prophet as terrorists while we’re in the midst of a “war on terror” then they were actively inciting prejudice, hatred and fear amongst the community.

This is really no different to what happened in Germany. As you say, there were other reasons for WWII and the holocaust, but newspapers decrying Jews at every opportunity would certainly have had an affect on public consciousness.

You said “it was active participation and an active suspension of rationality”. Obviously then, the newspapers actively participated in justifying the Nazi’s suspension of rationality, and encouraging the public to suspend rationality.

Are you suggesting that newspapers, which are in a position of shaping what the public thinks, have no responsibility for the consequences of what they print? Would it be acceptable to have rabidly racist or sexist propaganda all over our newspapers? Ought we not complain about it, or is it just too bad?

You say newspapers are not meant to show restraint or sensitivity. Well they do every day. Why don’t they show pictures of dead Iraqi children on the front page every day with a headline shouting the daily and accumulative death toll caused by our invasion? How long would the public stomach our involvement? And I bet German newspapers didn’t trumpet the fact that they were shipping Jews off to concentration camps to be gassed.

Of course people, and newspapers, have the right to “freedom of speech”. But we also have the right to call it what it is – vicious hate-inciting propaganda – aimed not just at Muslims – but all of us, with the intention of dividing us and pitting us against each other in an effort to divert us from the real issue which is the extreme and obscene polarization of wealth in society.

BOAZ sends Fleurette off to a re-education camp :)

You said:

"Where was I when the Muslims protested against their entire religion and world community being portrayed as terrorists? I was out there protesting with them. Because I don't see it as being just a cartoon or an example of expressing freedom of speech. I see it as being a dangerous form of propaganda that will filtrate the minds of the ignorant"

"Entire Religion and community" ? Nope..it was just their socalled prophet from memory.

"Terrorists" ? umm... perhaps you should look more closely at the life of Mohammed. Just out of curiosity, how DO you regard a man who indulged in:
-Mutilation of living prisoners.
-Torture to discover a town treasury
-Sexual adventurer including underage girls
-Raider of Caravans ...(usually this is called 'banditry/piracy etc'.
-Arranging a Mafia style 'hit' on a poet.
-Wrote that 'captive slave girls' can be used for sexual gratification.

With all this, (jjjdrmot@yahoo.com.au for sources/documentation) does it surprise you that they are sensitive about the truth being told ?
Or..that the regular response from 'passionate' Muslims is to call for the death of critics of Mohamed ?

In this case..the 'Truth' HURTS... because it shows the foundation of the religion to be evil. Unless of course you wish to 're-habilitate' Pablo Escobar and call him a great bloke because he built Soccer fields, Hospitals, Schools and Churches...... ? Do any of those things change his basic character ? Mohamed got his money by stealing from others, Pablo from drugs. 6 of one, Half dozen of the other as far as I can see.

The 'Propoganda' and 'Ignorance' are all on the Islamic side.

Shorbe,

"I tend to think that what makes any belief system or culture attractive and successful is ultimately what limits it or even leads to its own downfall. Our own set of ideas in the west is no exception." - Shorbe, early post

I think Quigley (civilizationalist)would have agreed with your statement. Perhaps adding that when power and wealth come together, there is a tendency to maintain the status quo. When the ecological niche shifts the civilization becomes less viable but wont change, because those in charge have all-the-power. Of course, this only part of the picture, as aforesaid in intertwined with economic and military power.

Boaz,

What are your references for this dark side of Muhammad?

I see parellels between Muhammad and Moses. Both used religion as unifiers leveraging the existing henotheism and chanelling the tribes towards monotheism.

In its first century, Islam borrowed some ritual practices from the Jews. Thrice a day prayer, for instance.

Islam, over the centuries, like Christianity, has had its schicisms. Early Isalm is much better documented that first century Christianity. Early Islam accepted the other prophets (Abraham, Moses, Jesus), as other peoples' relevation to the existence of (one) divinity.

What TV calls "fundamentalist" is probably more like some eighth-century Islamic sects than sixth century Islam.

Moreover, early Islamic scholars struggled a bit to establish Creeds, as Muhammad appears to have been less educated the Jesus (Hellenised Jew.