All right! I can’t hold back any longer…I’ve got to weigh in on this one! Sure the Mohammad cartoons were disrespectful of a religious icon. I too would be greatly saddened to see such a portrayal of my Savior. This mob reaction to the cartoons is simply unjustifiable. Attacking people, buildings, and other governments for the actions of one cartoon artist in Denmark is hardly a balanced response.
These violent protests are not just righteous indignations about dumb cartoons, but they are outward demonstrations of an inward evil. Hatred for Jews and Christians has been passed from generation to generation in these Islamic countries. Hatred and violence is often endorsed by their government and hypocritically by their religion. These people are violating the precepts of their own religion.
Brigham Young once postulated:
“He who takes offense when no offense was intended is a fool. And he who takes offense when offense was intended is usually a fool.”
The Danish cartoon artist is a fool for what he did, but the Muslim mobocrats are the greater fools!
9 comentarios:
Again I must disagree. We must not confuse our values with those of the Islamic world, and its not like the mob has never taken to American streets, too much ethnocentrism in this point of view.
I am not confusing my values with those of the Islamic "religion", but with the Islamic "world", perhaps you are correct. Regardless, many islamic clerics are igniting the flames of hate contrary to their fundamental principles. If my view appears "ethnocentric", it is probably due to your "open-mindedness" and "tolerance" and "acceptance" of others points of view. I, for one, believe in absolute truths. I do not believe in "ethnocentricities" as defined as an attitude of superiority. I do believe that there is good and evil and that there is right and wrong.
David, what do you believe about these protests over the cartoons? Are they good or bad?
I ask because I can't tell from your response if you even believe that there is such a thing as good and evil.
I am very familiar with mobs in the American streets. The founder of my religion was killed by a mob. I want to make sure that it is clear that to me there is a huge difference between violent mobs and peaceful protestors.
Violent mobs are always counterproductive to their own protests...they are either hypocritical to their principles or they are without principles.
I believe there's good and evil in the world. Free speech is a western value, and we shouldn't be smug about it, especially in a part of the world where western govermants have a long history of propping up tyrants in order to have easy access to oil. I say publish, but that's because I'm a westerner, if I was born and living in a Cairo slum, I'm sure I would have a difficult time coming around to this point of view, it is a crime in Egypt to publicly critisize the government, and our ally Mubarhric employs torture and arrest as government pollicy. When we push our values, democracy in the middle east, we get the Moslem Brotherhood and Hamas elected. We need to rethink everything in terms of policy and approach. We could start with the fact that it's oil, not democracy that we love, and that's why it's all going on.
David, are you really that cynical about our leaders being lovers of oil more than lovers of democracy? I have a little more faith in President Bush than that. I know he has financial interests in oil, and oil does have a huge effect in the global economy, but I sense a deeper passion for freedom in George W. when I hear him speak. Man, I hope and pray I am not deceived by some charade, but I'm usually pretty good about sensing one's intentions.
I also have faith in the genius and talents of mankind to find alternatives to oil. I just hope government and oil-loving lobbiest don't continue to impide the progress of innovation.
I might add that I respect your beliefs of right and wrong even though my world may have more shades of gray.
It's also ironic:
"I, for one, believe in absolute truths." "I do believe that there is good and evil and that there is right and wrong. "
That this is probably a fair description of how the protesters feel also.
Greetings,
I find this conversation fascinating, but not on the grounds of the original topic. I think any clear thinking person can confidently and unapologetically condemn the irrational, violent reaction of the “Muslim Street” to the cartoons… it is nothing more than another example of the cultural and political chaos that pervades that entire region of the world. If that obvious fact cannot be acknowledged, then Robert, I’m afraid it’s pointless to pursue the specific question any further with David... indeed, nothing in his counter-argument really addresses the central question which you posed very specifically, “David, what do you believe about these protests over the cartoons? Are they good or bad?” Instead, all he offers is an indictment of your arrogance at developing an opinion at all, albeit in a polite, inoffensive, politically correct way.
His “oh so sensitive” concern at your excess of “ethnocentricity” is quite touching. Let’s look at his gentle rebuke of your unfortunate lack of sophistication in considering differing points of view…
"I do believe that there is good and evil and that there is right and wrong. "
That this is probably a fair description of how the protesters feel also…
There now, have we all learned something? Gee Whiz, thanks David, how very lofty and non-judgmental… at least of the perpetrators of the violence.
Strip away the David’s vacuous attempt at civility, and what you are left with is “How dare you Robert! The fact that you would have the temerity to condemn these justifiable acts of protest (as evidenced by the depraved historical record of American greed and indifference to human suffering) exposes you as the narrow-minded bigot you are!”
This is America-hating “moral-relativism” at its puerile worst. David begins one of his pieces with the statement “I believe there's good and evil in the world”… as the lead sentence, one would assume that something in the following text would support that statement. Let’s assume that David intended that what followed to be an expression of his personal understanding of good and evil, and try to decipher where his sympathies lie. As we read on from this powerful opening declaration of belief, we learn that Americans are “smug” about our “values”, we are treated to a history lesson of our callous support of torturous despotism, we find that we are “pushy”, obnoxiously foisting Democracy on an uninterested populace with disastrous results, and that both our policy and approach are egregiously wrong, requiring that we “rethink everything”. He wraps it up with these words… “it's oil, not democracy that we love, and that's why it's all going on” Hmmmm… from all of this, the only logical conclusion is that David “believes” that America, with it’s silly, provincial “values” and so forth, is truly “evil”.
He begins another piece with these words, “I might add that I respect your beliefs of right and wrong even though my world may have more shades of gray” Again, this is the lead sentence of his offering… how does the rest of the piece demonstrate the “respect” he professes to hold? Robert’s beliefs in right and wrong are immediately marginalized by being characterized as “ironic” and placed in the same ethical plane as the rioters perpetrating the violence… some respect!
Unfortunately, ascribing all of these strong opinions and beliefs to one of David’s ilk is giving him too much credit. The one truly revealing remark is his confession that he lives in a gray world, and everything he writes is descriptive of that world. It is the foggy world of “moral relativism” where the only human behavior that is objectionable is the exercise of judgment itself, and then, only when exercised by those who enjoy a certain amount of “privilege”. In this case, the “privileged” class consists of anyone who would not be considered a minority, and embraces “Traditional American Values”. It is perfectly OK for a “victim” to form any judgments they choose, or engage in any activity, however extravagant or destructive… in the condescending opinion of a “moral relativist” the “victim” is exempt from personal responsibility for both their thoughts and deeds. When moral relativists make statements like “I believe there's good and evil in the world” it is an empty platitude, a hollow gesture to fall back on when their incapacity for conviction is exposed. That’s why David never answered the question posed… the only position he will ever vigorously defend is one of general anti-Americanism because he believes the rioters, the Middle East, indeed, the entire world is the hapless victim of the rapacious United States. It’s the only thing he understands because it’s easy… all you have to do to become an expert is sit there staring blankly at the tube and be fed a steady diet of the stuff. His arguments are pure “talking points”, devoid of any sign of critical thinking or independent thought.
In closing, I’d just like to offer a bit of advice to David. I’m going to end with a piece of writing that you are no doubt familiar with. I would ask that you contemplate it deeply, and if you believe it, I would encourage you to look into its origins. It represents the most fundamental American value of all, but to understand it, you have to realize it is not our exclusive property… it represents the product of thousands of years of struggle against tyranny, and though we can take pride that it was (and remains) the guiding principle that launched and sustains the American experiment, it’s universal message is the most profound gift that humanity has yet to bestow upon itself. Perhaps, some day, you to will come to love Democracy as it deserves.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
Publius
The world in not gray, but black, white, and shades between! Your argument fails, because you can not see this simple truth.
Greetings fellow Webarians,
First of all, I owe David an apology… I came on a little strong. That was an unnecessary and rather ungenerous self-indulgence. I am sorry sir.
Be aware that I’m not trying offer offense, but as my perspective differs from yours, I will by necessity be making statements you may find provocative. That being said, it is clear from your response that you are missing the point. I never said that every situation can be defined in pure black and white… that would be an obvious oversimplification. The real issue I was trying to address was the process one undergoes when forming an opinion, or making a decision to act.
Any situation that is found compelling enough to inspire an individual to form an opinion undergoes a process of evaluation. Every person approaches this evaluation process differently, by filtering the situation through the lens of their beliefs. The result is obviously as varied as there are individuals, but only in degree, not in type. All such processes, at their most fundamental level, arrive at only two categories of resolution… either approval or disapproval. The level of approval or disapproval is infinitely varied, but if the scales don’t tip either way, then no opinion has been formed at all…
What is disturbing about your approach to discourse is your seeming lack of willingness to take this important first step. You claim that my argument has failed… the truth is that my argument has yet even to be challenged! You offer no counter-argument; indeed, your response either bolsters my point, or indicates that you didn’t understand it in the first place. Robert asked you a simple question, “Are the riots good or bad”. You failed to address this core question entirely, and proceeded on to a laundry list of haphazard, disjointed justifications to absolve the rioters of responsibility for their actions. I then took you to task for your vague, non-committal response to the question, and your thinly veiled presumption that Robert was simply too narrow-minded and “ethnocentric” (bigoted) for his opinion to be valid. I accused you of “moral relativism” which is a condition in which a person is incapable of making value judgments due to their odd belief that all opinions are valid, regardless of the consequences those opinions provoke. Your writings indicated to me that you’d traveled so far down this road that you had lost the capacity to identify the murder of innocent people in the streets, perhaps the most universally deplored act of villainy on the planet, as unequivocally wrong. And so I made the point that, contrary to your implication that this is an indication of your nuanced ability to navigate through varying gradations of gray, you are in fact simply lost in the fog, a keel less vessel, lacking both anchor and compass. To this, you respond, “The world in not gray, but black, white, and shades between! Your argument fails, because you can not see this simple truth.” Once again, you pay lip service to your belief in black and white without demonstrating any evidence to support the claim. Surely you can do better!
I’m almost certain that this is a lost cause, but in the off chance that maybe David has something of substance to contribute to the conversation, let me try to put the point in contention into clear enough focus that David doesn’t drift off course.
You sum of your argument is in accusing both Robert and I of being unable to think outside of a set of rigid boundaries, being too narrow-minded to comprehend the complexity of the situation as you do. You do this because we gave a black and white question a black and white answer… you make this accusation without having offered anything to explore either of our capacity for nuance. I can’t speak for Robert, but I contend that you do this because you are insulted by anyone who has the audacity to believe they have the moral authority to believe their opinion is superior to another’s, and that you are incapable of forming an opinion because you lack the conviction of your own beliefs… any murderous rioter’s opinion is as good as your own it would seem.
Prove me wrong. Show some conviction. I would be delighted to debate you on any of the many topics injected into your former piece, and perhaps I can convince you of my capacity for “nuance”… but let’s not get distracted. Concentrate dude! In your own words, you believe there is right and wrong… you have demonstrated your mastery of the gray… will you, can you, demonstrate any capacity for black and white?
Let’s start from scratch David. I will pose the question again. If you can, try to answer it without qualification, reserving your explanations for the remainder of your response. The question is this, “Are the riots good or bad?”
Publius
Riots are bad. For more on the subject visit:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june06/symbols_2-15.html
Publicar un comentario