Trivial. Dust in the wind. The CNNization of our frivilous world. An issue of no or little importance. A year from now will anybody care?

Shanti, shanti people, let's not get all worked up over nothing. That includes the seven newspapers who cared enough to reprint these silly pictures.

Brilliant Post! As much as we disagree on many things I do salute you that you have the balls to speak up on what you stand for. You should quit the Liberals and join the conservatives, now can you get back to what you are supposed to do ;)

I do agree that the western media was totally insensitive on this issue. However, the reaction in the muslim world is uncalled for. Saudi Arabia recalling their ambassador is ridiculus. Why should Denmark govt. be responsible for what a newspaper did? In fact, how can they demand that the Denmark govt. should throttle the newspaper for what it has done. Even though I agree that the western media is insensitive to islamic religion by such a depiction, you cannot ban such an act in a free country. The newspaper has every right to carry on a cartoon like that. It may have erred on the issue of sensitivity but I disagree with the calls from muslim countries to ban such a depiction. Such calls amount to curtailing freedom.

I wouldn't blame western media for such insensitivities. There was an incident in Tamilnadu (for starters, a state in India) where a leading political leader was depicted as virgin mary in political posters. Such insensitivities exist in all the countries. However, crutailing freedom of expression is not a way to stop such insensitivity or hypocrisy (if you want to call it in that way). Reaction by Saudi Arabia and other muslim countries can be termed bizarre, at the very least.

Typo: It should be

"I wouldn't just blame western media alone for such insensitivities."

instead of

"I wouldn't blame western media for such insensitivities."

I guess people believe that it's okay if they make fun of their own religion, because they KNOW, but it's not okay for others, because they're outsiders and hence ignorant.
On one hand, Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) being depicted as a bomber is inaccurate, as, well, he is dead. Moreover, these countries arre stereotyping all Muslims on the basis of a bunch of fanatics.
Only idiots, whatever religion or belief they engage in, would believe the interpretation of any religion by fanatics, especially when they have never had trouble from residents of that religions before (or the incidents have been few and far between).
No one kicks up a ruckus for something they don't care about/believe in, however illogical it may seem to outsiders.
We as humanity have every right to protest against human rights abuse because no religion propagates that, EVER. But any outsider culture has no right to place judgment upon a belief it has not even studied or examined. Of course, bombing/terrorism/threats to security is a serious matter and concerns every nation, but the trivialisation of a serious matter, by the implication of an untrue assumption of an entire group, only results in events/allegations becoming self-fulfilling prophecies.
Condemn often enough and soon you will have reason to. And you may well be the one regretting.
That's the way it is.
And if we want things to stop, we need to stop retaliating and start setting an example. And not an offensive one.

Why didn't these muslim countries condemn M F Husain for his nude depictions of Hindu goddesses. I am not saying he has done anything wrong. In fact, I am against those Hindu fundamentalist thugs who harassed him over it. If these muslim countries are so worried about western media caricaturing Prophet, why didn't they understand the sensitivities of Hindus who got offended by M F Husain. Why didn't they condemn him then? Isn't this a hypocrisy?

As far as I am concerned, all the religious fanatics should mind their business without interfering in freedom of speech/expression of other human beings.

I'm against MF Hussain and his publicity stunts and for that matter I think people should leave religion alone and show their creativity in other fields.

When I met MFH a few years ago, I asked him why not do a art of Allah in nude or why not do his mom or his wife in nude and we might be itnerested in that, not Lord Saraswathi.

I haven't see it yet. I don't he will dare do it, if he loves his life.

Doesn't matter which religion it is, the world is a better place to live it we learn to respect other people's beliefs and faith.

And just to play the devil's advocate here, since the cartoons were not drawn by a Muslim, or in a Muslim country, in a religion that bans idolatry, there is no need for Muslims to get angry. But wait, that amounts to me not having a right to get mad about Ganesha chappals.
And i believe the Christians did raise a hue and cry about the Mary in Brooklyn graffitied and covered in shit.
SO just goes to say we're all incredibly protective of our own uncertainties, cos few people FULLY believe in every story their religion and leaders tell them.

What do I think, Vijay? I think that it is easier to be a hypocrit than we think, and that we should always look at ourselves before we get angry at the world "out there". That is, if we don't want to be part of the problem, but of the solution.

You seem to be angry at the people who do not respect and tolerate others, and I wonder if you are very sure that you respect and tolerate the people you are talking about.

If someone doesn't respect someone's religion and I answer with disrespecting them for that, I guess I'm behaving just like them. That's what hypocrisy is...

Muslims feel their religion is being disrespected, the Western journalists feel their freedom of speech is being disrespected, we can do our best to understand and respect both sides. If we don't, we can be honest about it, recognise it is our own hypocrisy we are looking at and work on our own issues. That's what I think.

Aranyi,

"since the cartoons were not drawn by a Muslim, or in a Muslim country, in a religion that bans idolatry, there is no need for Muslims to get angry."

Well said. Actually they have the right to get angry. But I would condemn their reaction. If they get angry, drink a few beers and sleep off, I have no problem. But this reaction is way too much and such reactions curtailing the freedom of speech should not be encouraged. However, I do agree with Vijay's argument that people should respect the sensitivites of all the religions. But if I have to chose between free speech and sensitivity to others, I would take free speech over the other.

Vijay - If I read you correctly, you are saying that the western countries should take the moral higher ground in this matter even if they are entitled to do what they did? In a way this is true. But I have a suspicion that this may partly have been a reaction to the extreme bullying that the Muslim authorities have started resorting to over the years. Europeans are generally ultra-sensitive about religion but they probably started feeling stifled by the constant pressure asserted by Muslims in their countries. The fact that other countries joined them in support also suggests that they thought this was an important enough political issue to express their solidarity. As they said, their culture is at stake.

I just skimmed through the cartoons, but I found only one of them offensive - the one with the bomb sticking out of the turban. This could reinforce a sterotype of turban-wearing and terrorism. Otherwise, the west has a long history of making fun of religious figures - including Jesus and Mary. It would also be hypocrisy if they only spared Islam. Similarly, Muslims have every right to protest and I'm glad they are doing so. The degree of their protests is simply ridiculous, however. Hindus too are offended by pictures of their gods on slippers and toilet covers and they have a right to protest, as do xtians and they both routinely do. So both caricaturing religion and protesting about it are a part of freedom of expression and should not be suppressed. Let's hope this starts a healthy debate in Muslim countries about how valid it is for them to react in this extreme manner.

Hello Vijay and Everyone,

After World War II the world was shocked by the concentration camps the Nazi's built to house and murder people, but did the world really take the time to reflect on the source of that kind of hate, did the world take the time to reflect and understand what would make one human being enjoy the suffering and pain of another? What if the world really had stopped and taken a look, taken the time to understand hate, our hate, not their hate, the Nazi's hate, but our hate. The hate that supported and nurtured Hitler's to make him the most powerful murderer of our time. If we had taken the time to understand the power of our hate, the love of our hate, do you think we would have a different world today?

I wonder what was in the heads of the news people who decided to print these depictions? These people had to know the reaction they would get, but they decided to do it anyway. Of course, they knew they were being disrespectful, any idiot would know that, but they decided to do it anyway. They say it was freedom of the press, but and any idiot knows you can have freedom of the press without being disrespectful. So what really gives here, why did they print them? ruth

May the day come soon
that we become intolerant
of intolerance

Love to all

I agree with you Vijay; however, we must not condemn millions of Catholics around the globe; just because of a few bad ones, whom use their skills to provoke?

I am totally against how newspapers are using the media to cartoon their way into antagonizing a religion, which is sensitive and only provokes anger, tension and contentiousness between us.

You are right, Vijay; the more they abuse others, the more papers they sell...it would seem all the media in the world, are becoming cheap harlots!!

Yes, I am with you on this one Vijay; it IS time, to stop antagonizing others religious beliefs; that includes going easy on Catholics too.

WE cannot condemn all Catholics; just because of a few bad ones!! Yes, there are priests that became/are/were pedophiles; but, there are also teachers, coachs, cops and councillors; whom also are pedophiles. As a matter of fact; a cop was just recently arrested, on child porn charges!!

so, we ALL must be careful on how we condemn another; because when we do that; we condemn ourselves to anger/hatred/frustration/indifference/nonrespect...etc.

North

Hi Ruth,

I believe Divya answered your question about why the media published these cartoons. Regarding understanding hate, if you replace the word hate with evil, then, it would be very beneficial to understand, however, hate is an emotion which is simply that.

Good post,

Steve

What's scary to me is how strongly we become attached to our beliefs, so much so that we are willing to hate and hurt others over them. This includes all religions. Do our Gods really need our protection? Do they need us puny human beings to fight for them? Or if we believe that we are all One, do we need protection from ourselves?

I took a online MSN poll that asked it you felt people were justified in protesting and was thoroughly surprised after I said they were justified, something like 85% of the respondants disagreed and thought they had no reason to be upset and protest. This is really really sad.

Sheryl

"Leave religion alone, we already have enough global problems because of it, is our creativity limited to insults and religious intolerance?"

Well said. God has so many names and they are all beautiful and sacred.

Blessings,
Donatella
P.S. Just for the record, a few years ago the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago showed a controversial installation by an American artist. One of the media in the installation was a large photograph of a crucifix immersed in a container filled with well...urine. I don't remember any protests. I was mildly offended and that's that.

Hi everybody,and Vijay,

World is a mixture of good, bad, and sad.

All religions are good, bad, and sad

Religions have dogma,they're man made,

This world is a mixture of sugar and sand

I want to be an ant, wise and very old,

I want to pick the sugar and leave the sand

I want to enjoy my sugar and forget the sand

Vijay,

To burst the Illusion here, religions cannot be insulted. They do not think or have feelings.

In order to understand what you are talking about and the issue you must go to a much deeper level.

Part of the problem with the creation of conflict in the world is that someone thinks a religion can be insulted.

It is part of the Illusion and ignorance that abounds on this planet.

We need some lucid thought.

I think it has very much to do with intent.

Is that not the real issue?

Humans and their intent and the conveyance

Sometimes people turn something into an attack on them because it grants their self or there self identified with religion, permission to attack something they do not like which is really them selves projected on another.

Some people have built a false identity using religion, such as it is we are suffering from an identity crisis.

Vijay:

I must respectfully disagree with you.

Firstly, the Danish newspaper that published these is well known for it's extreme right-wing stance and has done similar things in the past. Quite frankly, they aren't dangerous, they are childish. They do this to get attention. By giving them attention, we fuel their actions.

I am not offended by any depictions of any religions. They don't affect me because they aren't a part of me - they are an indication of the artist/cartoonist/writer's state of mind, not the way things really are. I think those who get offended probably have questions about their religion that they don't admit to themselves. (BTW, no, I am not a Christian.)

And what is the difference between these cartoons and Rushdie's "Satanic Verses"? Do you think that books like that should be banned?

The extreme outrage by so many Muslims makes me wonder what is going on with them. There's a difference between finding something distasteful or offensive and an anger that finds you storming consulates and burning buildings. There are 2 groups of people here - those who are upset but not acting out and those who are behaving violently. Am I the only one who finds it interesting that this later group are probably the same people who rejoice in the street when one of their own sets off a *successful* suicide bomb in the very name of Islam?? Is that not the height of hypocrisy?

Should these people have created these cartoons? Well, no. It's just silly and childish. But would it not be much more sensible to show Islam's peaceful side in return? To shake their heads and laugh and assert that *obviously* these people are ignorant if they think Mohammed promoted violence. Perhaps seek to educate. Do they not realize that by taking these actions that they affirm exactly what the cartoon depicts?

Ruth: I think your thoughts are SPOT ON and should be printed in every sociology textbook and newspaper from one side of the world to the other. It was the hatred of the everyday "man on the street" that allowed the Nazi atrocities, not Hitler's alone. Thank you for that.

Love, Sheba

I would also add that the other angle on this is that there are those that benefit from us being divided and in conflict against each other.

It creates a diversion from the real perpetrators of the imbalance of the planet.

So those using and helping to create false identities to produce diversionary conflict, could be thwarted if we acheive unity and become aware of the technique.

when a religion is attacked; the people whom follow that religion will react... we all know this.

It is wrong to condemn Catholics for all the ills and ails in the religious circles on this planet; it's high time, we become respectable to anothers beliefs, even when contrary to our own.

What I have read is: respect my religion or else; then they go ahead and defile the Catholic religion at the same breath? yikes! Hypocricy!

Part of maturing as a being and as a nation; and as a global party; we must learn to not cross lines of antagonism; by signalling out one specific religion, as the all-oppressed one...they all suppress and oppress free-thought.

to those that follow an oppressed religion do so; from free will and choice...

so yes, religious wars do hurt, and they spark wars; they ignite ego-anger and hatred. WE know this.

So, why do we continue doing it?

North

I agree with Sheba, a cartoon would never offend me because because I am not attached to some false identity and my ego self has been adjusted with wisdom. It is the ego self that could be offended not the spirit self.

We choose to be offended.

Yes, Richard.

As Eleanor Roosevelt once famously said, "Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission."

North: we already have the hate inside of us. Outside events don't create it... they just give us an excuse to vent the hatred. We choose our reactions. As long as we give power to the "events", we remain in their grip. True freedom is the moment we realize that no one can cause us to feel inferior. I have to keep reminding myself of this.

Love, Sheba

Dear North,

I agree. We should not be antagonitsic. We simply should avoid doing what might hurt others. We normally have a pretty good idea of what might hurt someone. We are supposed to speak sweetly to all, while speaking the truth.

But because we are human we also make mistakes. Though, intentionally hurting others' feelings (whether it's about religion, nationality, skin color etc.)is wrong and counterproductive. Don't all spiritual teachers say that?

I personally think that God is beyond all religions, so I appreciate all of them. Sri Ramakrishna practiced all religions. He reached a state of samadhi, or ecstasy, with each one of them. I think that's beautiful.

Love,
Donatella

RUTH:You said:
"I wonder what was in the heads of the news people who decided to print these depictions? These people had to know the reaction they would get, but they decided to do it anyway. Of course, they knew they were being disrespectful, any idiot would know that, but they decided to do it anyway"
This is a calculated move on the part of the 'WEST' in this dicey game of religious war between the JUDEO-CHRISTIAN and ISLAM adversaries.
It has immense possibilites and consequences,some pre-calculated and taken into account for and some which will show up as nasty surprises as this horrible conflict flares up.
Will it be a stupid or cunning move..... only time will tell.

Vijay,

Be the solution.

Religion and Media are both weapons of war and both sides are quite sophisticated in using them in this heinous and dangerous conflict.
Having more choices should never be confused with "Freedom Of......" anything.

Hello Everyone,

Just caught CNN and the rioting is still going on and embassies are burning. Unfortunately, watching this kind of reaction does not elicit sympathy from anyone, it just reinforces the view that militant Islamists are taking over what once a peaceful, beautiful expression of a religion, and trying to use it as a political power base.

I do not, at all, think there is any kind of war going on between religions, but there is a war between militant fanatics and those who want to follow some kind of rules of engagement in dealing with countries and governments. There are folks who would like to hide there hunger for power behind a religion, but it is not going to fly in today's world. Whether you are Islamic, Catholic, Buddist, whatever, and you use fanatical militancy to try to get your way you will be dealt with by the powers that be..ruth

Vijay,
Are you out of your mind to say that western media should be careful about insulting religion…

we are free open society....

What about freedom of speech.
First of all Muslims are extremist about their religion and do not understand freedom of speech.
I mean this is freaking insane to say our free society to succumb into radical, extreme Muslims, they have no business to interfere what we should do in our life.

Nobody cares how Muslims treat non Muslims in their countries
I mean this is most liberal and nonsensical post I ever show in my life. I thought that most of the liberals like freedom of speech..

Jignesh

Wow - of course there is a great discussion here on this topic and I am very grateful for the presence of intentblog.
Ruth's talking about the hatred of the Nazis brings to mind some documentaries I've just seen on the history channel about the rise of nazism in Germany. What I got from it was that the supporters of Hitler were entralled by the power that he promised: better cars (Porche being his man), better this and that, all because they were able to use slave labor. The concentration camp slaves were less hated than they were necessary to the building of Hitler's empire. In other words, people fell for the promise of the "master race" more than they succumbed to hatred. The hatred was incidental, "a necessary evil". By the way, if Native American estimates are correct, the decimation of fifty million of their populations supercedes the numbers attributed to Hitler and Stalin combined.
My own take on the reason people are so angry, and I am not a Muslim, is that the image is distorted. Surely we can understand the perception by non-Muslims that Christians are sometimes violent in their efforts to colonize. (see example above, the Americas). Native Americans tell their history as trying to make peace with a barbarous invader who did not understand restraint or commitment to their own words. Yet they were portrayed as savages. Were these papers projecting onto Muslims, is that what you were saying Richard?
I know I get offended by cartoons and jokes about vegetarians (and there are lots of them out West), and pot smokers (same deal there-lots of us out here). Again, as Richard says, there are people who wish populations to turn against each other and hate. And I believe large hate crowds are managed, they don't just happen usually. So, perhaps the tension in Iran, who knows why it might benefit certain people to make a big deal over this? I say the papers should apologize because the cartoon was obviously offensive to a lot of people and in poor taste. It's not going to end free speech as we know it.

HI Donatella; I was born into "a" religion, via birth and into a family of that religion. The choice was then, not mine, as such.

When I became a young adult, and old enough to comprehend my own personal needs as far as self-development and knowlege goes; I too,,, learned of many ways, beyond my blood-line of religion.

Antagonism; is the same as poking a stick at someone; to instigate the pokers "mandate" which is usually to prove a point; have a need to be right, dominant, dominant... is the key factor of such motive?

So, in my humble opinion, with age on my side and experience(ahem) to form one; with college studies, jobs, and all kinds of community activism; I learned many valuable lessons:

1)Never talk politics
2)Never talk marriage
3)Never tell dirty jokes in mixed company

Under this above umbrella; we beget respect.

WE fail big time, as a species of intelligent beings; not so much from human weakness and frailties inherent to the traits of human beings;

but, under the umbrella's such as war, politics and religion...those ARE the oppressors of man/woman; and voila' the non-respect aspect of nonpeace.

However; should a person "choose" to follow a religion, for their own personal growth as a being; I have a great respect for that such as you... I really have a hard time to "understand" religious war?

this planet, this race of human beings that we are, could manifest paradise..right here, right now..right on earth.

may the force of respect be with us, in all ways, as we strive to achieve respect "for" peace.

Donatella; I've read Deepak, some Ghandi, loved(more) through Rumi and Tagore, Barrett-Browning, Kahlil Gibran, and Mary Haskell... I've really resonated with reading anything on The Tao, Karate Fundamentals, Ju Jitsu, Yoga, Religions, etc... and Hiawatha!! just to give you an idea of where I am leading with this disclosure...

But, what I never did; while reading/studying/absorbing/learning the above "ways" was I never learned, anywhere, that God is strictly exlusive to one religion either(smiles) so this is what I don't get!!

God is all of us... so, we fight not only ourselves, but God.

When one dissects so many "themes of living" the "art of being" such as the aboves, one still must ultimately "choose" to cling, onto their own personal likes and dislikes about religion, nonreligion? lol

I really don't get why people provoke, whom don't believe in things...at someone whom does believe in things... why can't we respect each others space indeed? lol

Ultimately, peace is won; when we win the war within...that peace, connects to another person's peace...then another..and around the world we go.

WE are like Star Trek's "Borg" WE are one console; billions of different energies...segments in physical structures and that IF the all.

Hmm.. lol I like the way you think, Donatella; and btw,,did you change the spelling of your name?

North

Ladies & Gentlemen,

There is some misunderstanding here. It is not about the criticism or ridiculing the religion that muslims are against. There is plenty of that in internet, newpapers and even in Intentblog. But what they are against is about drawing the The Prophet. It is totally against their fundamental belief/dogma, which I think should be respected.

I think we are in agreement with you RKL... this is why I feel; it was an act of provocation to do/publish the cartoon in the first place... they know full well; there would be outcry!! The press, to me, has failed it's mandate to remain nonbias, nonopinionated....

I am against any forms of provocation, using religion/children/women as their bullet.

North

Dear North,

Exactly! I agree with you. You are so well educated in spirituality. I don't know about Statrek though(sorry, I confess I have never watched it).
What does God have to do with religion?
Yet, I know that we are supposed to respect others' views. So why call people names? Or insult the name of "their" God?
No, I did not change the spelling of my name. It's my real name, the name of an Italian Renaissance artist. And yours?

Hi Veghead and RKL,
I agree that insulting other people's believes is wrong. And in remarkably bad taste! That is exactly what I felt when I saw the exibit at the MCA in Chicago that I mentioned above.

Blessings,
Donatella

I am here, on my group site, Donatella; visit if you like... there are a few members, though silent, busy.. we've just delete a years worth of space; to make room for NEW rooms and albums.... lol

http://groups.msn.com/SpiritsoftheFourWinds

Oook, StarTrek; it's a TV show.

IN an episode, is another race called: The Borg

The Borg are human assimilations, which run from one console(source) which is connected to each Borg, via computer chip... they are all ONE.

hence, humans all share ONE console of power/source/evolution...as well...

Ok, pretty hard to explain star trek theology to someone whom hasn't seen it... but, that's about as de-script as I can make it...lol

Borg however, were the bad guys; their mandate, was to "borganize" every species into "their ONE" console...

I see humans often as the Borg...

North

Dear Vijay Sappani

To understand this problem, it is essential to first understand, and identify the energy that created Religion in the first place.

All Religions can only be found in an abnormal strata of energy know as "Doctrine" this is the same energy that created Politics, Law, and all "Groups"

There are 4 such abnormal energy strata's on the planet Earth.

The first and most abnormal is

1. Dogma

followed by;

2. Bias, Prejudice, and Opinion

then

3. Doctrine

an the least offensive

4. Philosophy

These four abnormal energies are intertwined with each other and permeate 99.9% of humanity.

These energies wake us up every morning and put us to bed each night!

Understanding this condition makes it easy to understand the resultant, anger, intolerance, violence, and war that these abnormal energies breed.

It is only when we achieve a mental state equivalent to "Contemplation" that we rise above these 4 abnormal energies and are, for the first time, able to see clearly, "Truth".

Aurora Carlson I very much enjoyed your response.

To all your Love, Honor,and Truth,

Stan

RKL:

Ok here goes...My "religious sect" is strict that I read the Vedas and perform Havan every week! Can I do that in Saudi Arabia? Why cant they respect MY religious sentiment? Do you think the Muslims of the world give two hoots about my "Havan" and my broken religious vows??

Well.. asking the Saudis to change their laws to accomodate is AS ridiculous - as it is to ask the Europeans to change their laws on open and free speech and expression. The cartoonist's BUSINESS is to ridicule or caricature any subject.... it could be Bush or Lincoln or Jesus or Mary .. this time it happened to be Prophet.. big deal!

It was the artists expression of what he might have been like. You dont agree with him.. dont! to you its blasphemous to think about how his face might have looked like.. but to stop others from conjuring that image up is plain nonsensical!

How far will this Middle-eatern extremism go to?? Should people stop "imagining" or thinking creatively or rather uncreatively in this case - (artists view of Prophet was no different from Osama's image - thats cretaivity for you!!)!?

Thank your stars he wasnt drawn "nude" ... thats what MF Hussain does to some Hindu Goddesses in India.. and no one can even raise his finger without getting "Saffroned" there :-)..... all in the name of .. yes.. "Creative Liberty"!

So, if you DID NOT raise your voice THEN.. you better SHUT UP now! Fair enough??

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

RKL:
Get ready to see a whole bunch of radical islamists deported back from western nations to their 'pure' lands where they will breathe free and get to practice their faith in an unfettered way.The west has awakened to the schemeing deceitful bigotry where all the fairness and tolerance has to come from the adopted lands and these thankless creatures don't even squeak a whisper of objection or a voice of reason towards the atrocities and blatant human rights violations of minoroties in the islamic nations.

I didn't read your article, but I just watched South Park. They were emphasizing on partitioning against movie directors and the power to remake movies. Not that I think they got the right person but they hugely focused on Stephen Spielburg.
My personal opinion is that movies were far more authentic when producers like him ruled....

I think christians or more precise a part of the western world feels frightened about muslims .
There is a great distortion of perception and those cartoons let some people feel superior to the beliefs of others and strenghtens their own identity as part of a group.This is a tribal behaviour and it comes from fear,so shame wouldn't really bring freedom to apreciate and tolerate diversity of spiritual experience and practice ( what we call religion ).
I prefer that they don't strenghten their own negative emotions by publishing those cartoons but this is not a matter of religion.

Desh - It is not necessary that I should build a castle around me, without any windows, just because byneighbour has one around him. It is not necessary that I should use invectives against my neighbour if he uses it against me.

You asked me to shut up if I did not respond in the similar way when MF Hussain drawn the nude pictures of Hindu Goddeses. This arguement is totally false and put forth here to mislead the readers. In the first place, you do not know who I am and secondly if I have responded in that case ever. Then what is the point you are trying to make, other than create a false premises?

You end your comment with a "fair enough" statement. Had you been fair enough as you pretend, then you should have checked it before you made that statement.

You are reading too much when you say I do not like how the cartoonists depicted the prophet. Read again what I wrote previously - it is not about how. In whatever way he was depicted, it would still be against the dogma. That is it. You can choose to respect that feeling or ridicule it. That is your business and will point to your inner life.

sid harth - what is wrong with you? First demolish the castle you built around you. Let fresh air enter into your lungs and new light in to your mind.

Desh - U wrote: >>

I would appreciate very much if you can stop this practise of deciding what is what for me and what is not what. Thank you

Hi - here is what you wrote!: "artists view of Prophet was no different from Osama's image - thats cretaivity for you!!)!?"

Good article from the Telegraph. Hope you can read the whole thing, otherwise here's an extract. This is very much about politics and less about hurt feelings.

http://tinyurl.com/boh4f

"The complained-of cartoons first appeared in October; they have provoked such fury only now. As reported in this newspaper yesterday, it turns out that a group of Danish imams circulated the images to brethren in Muslim countries. When they did so, they included in their package three other, much more offensive cartoons which had not appeared in Jyllands-Posten but were lumped together so that many thought they had. It rather looks as if the anger with which all Muslims are said to be burning needed some pretty determined stoking. Peter Mandelson, who seems to think that his job as European Trade Commissioner entitles him to pronounce on matters of faith and morals, accuses the papers that republished the cartoons of "adding fuel to the flames"; but those flames were lit (literally, as well as figuratively) by well-organised, radical Muslims who wanted other Muslims to get furious. How this network has operated would make a cracking piece of investigative journalism. "

It is amazing to me that Divya, Krish, Desh, Jignesh and myself all agree on one point. Very well said everyone.

RKL, I will have to take an issue with you because you seem to be the only dissenter here. You say it is against the dogma to depict Muhammad. Please remember these rules apply only to believers, not others. Today you say it hurts your feelings if I depict Muhammad so it should be banned. Tomorrow someone says, picture of ANY kind hurts their feelings because it is against their religious dogma, so should we ban pictures too? I will say it hurts my feelings if someone criticizes Gandhi, so should everyone ban any criticism of Gandhi too? Where will this stop?

My position is simple. If Muhammad was a terrorist, child molestor, caravan looter then so be it. If he was a great man so be it. Just because some people say otherwise is not going to change whatever he was. If you have faith in him and his teachings, great! But dont tell me how I should feel about him.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

Divya: Your Quote

"Hindus too are offended by pictures of their gods on slippers and toilet covers and they have a right to protest, as do xtians and they both routinely do. So both caricaturing religion and protesting about it are a part of freedom of expression and should not be suppressed. Let's hope this starts a healthy debate in Muslim countries about how valid it is for them to react in this extreme manner"

I agree with you about right to protest. But I am extremely disappointed by the violent protest by the Muslim countries. At least as far as I know eastern and other religions whenever they were depicted with bad taste, did not involve in violent protest. There are many peaceful ways of protest to show their solidarity. Incidents such as Buddha Bar etc., are some of the examples.

Violent protest and closing the embassies again compels everyone to believe that Islam is a violent religion and infact support this belief.

Yogi Selliah

Ravi: Your Quote

"My position is simple. If Muhammad was a terrorist, child molester, caravan looter then so be it. If he was a great man so be it. Just because some people say otherwise is not going to change whatever he was. If you have faith in him and his teachings, great! But don’t tell me how I should feel about him"

I kind a disagree with you.

You have your right to feel whatever way you want in your own back yard, but not at a public media, forum or a place in the name of freedom of speech. Constructive criticism is o.k. But not offensive talk. But at the same time I can't agree with this violent protest.

One of my friend who is a catholic once made a joke that pope was showing his finger whenever some one goes for a blessing. After couple of months when I said the same with some other friends he felt offended.

My point is its o.k to make fun of your own religion but not others.

Yogi Selliah.

RKL:

I am NOT assuming anything. I am just probing you. If you did say something on MF Hussain .. then just say it.. The problem is that this "sensitivity" just works ONE way most times!

Today Danish embassy in Lebanon was burnt.. and I can BET it that the usual secular suspects here .. will not voice a word! Yet, ALL of these would have taken Shiv Sena to task on destroying the Hussain paintings!

If the hypocrisy stopped here.. it would have been fine.. Its the assumptions and homilies on what the "trigger" for violence was that speaks volumes! While in the after math of the Hussain violence (destroying paintings) the "trigger" forwarded was "Intolerance of Saffronites".. but in THIS case it will . .. in ALL certainty be the "Intolerance of the Danish"!! Same reaction.. DIFFERENT villains!

Now, re: depiction of Prophet.. I NEVER raised the question HOW.. but WHY. I said .. How can you stop OTHERS from Imagination.. just because creativity of imagination is a sin in YOUR world!?? I am questioning the "Straitjackets on Imagination" that you want to impose of folks!

Guys, lets get real.. this is NOT The world of those deserts tribes where Prophet lived. The world has grown and shrunk at the same time.. communication means BEYOND the scope at that time have come about.. to impose the sins of THAT era now.. ON everyone is foolishness! You could use the sword then to impose.. NOT NOW!!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Ravi:

The difference between me and Krish in this situation is that "allowance" for sensitivity that he provides to the Muslims ... while I am not so sure if that same "allowance" was even considered in that case. I need unequivocal stuff that the reaction was the same then!

Besides.. there is a heck of lot of difference between a normally clothed (ok with a bomb sticking out in one) and a nude Goddess! So like Vijay asked Hussain.. the day Allah is depicted nude and the reactions around remain the same ... that I will think I have met a real "Secular".. until then.. its all positioning!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Yogi,

What you are talking about is a social contract. We have an implicit understanding that we should be nice to our neighbors, fellow citizens and to all humans in general. I totally agree with you. However, this niceness, is voluntary and there is a reason for that. The reason is that it can't be legislated. What will you legislate? If I call someone a moron, it doesn't necessarily make him a moron.

The social contract makes me acceptable or not acceptable in the society I live. If I were obnoxious, started calling people names, acting high mighty, I won't be popular for long. Pretty soon I will not be welcome anywhere. Same thing applies to even media. If all their reporting is shallow and depends on sensationalism, sooner or later their audience is going to get tired and start looking elsewhere. That's a much better prescription than banning such act.

While, I wouldn't do what the Danish newspaper did, but I defend their right to do it.

Desh, your point is well taken. The left and the right both are equally guilty of biases. For some BJP and RSS could do no wrong. And for others it is the same with Muslims. A balance is required for a positive dialogue.

Regards,

Ravi

Dear Vijay,

While I can sympathize with your position, the problem with constantly attempting to avoid offending people is that being offended is totally subjective. What offends me may not bother you at all. Being offended is purely a choice or rather a perception.

Here in the States there are HUNDREDS of cartoons and television shows that lampoon Christianity and Christians; if anything in the US Christianity is the only religion that it is politically correct to poke fun at. So to say that the west does not do that is silly.

Having said that, it is important for us to be sensitive to the feelings and sensitivities of others. I would not however destroy business and threaten harm innoccent people in the name of being offended. I would suggest that if you are upset by a newspapers cartoons or anything that is printed in the paper...don't buy the paper.

Peace,
Scott.

Ravi - I have never tried to dictate you how you should feel about some one. As I wrote to Desh, it is your business - you can imagine whatever according to your understanding. What I was trying to say is that it will be better if we can learn to respect our neighbours' feelings. By that I did not mean that you should not criticise them. I hope you can understand the difference.

Lest misunderstood, I do not support the kind of reactions from Muslims. that is not the way. It is also true that these people have made their religion silly.

Desh - First thing first - stop probing me, I do not like to be probed. Clear? Just reply to what I write - if u care, and make conclusions about me, according to your capacity or just ignore me.

You continue to show what Vijay said - the hypocrisy. You imply that what is at stake is creativity and imagination. Yet you complain that the 'secular suspects' did not denounce MF Hussain. If you believe that it is everybody's right to their own imagination, why do you care if they object or not. It should be a non-issue for you - Hussain can imagine whatever he wants as it is his right/freedom. Why not you allow him to have his own freedom and paint in whatever way he likes? If you truly believe in freedom of expression, you should not have mentioned MF Hussain here. You would have recognized it as his freedom and then whether somebody reacted to it or not will not matter to you. So the reason is something else and that is evident to me from your lines, which is what Tore wrote: "There is a great distortion of perception and those cartoons let some people feel superior to the beliefs of others and strenghtens their own identity as part of a group.This is a tribal behaviour and it comes from fear,so shame wouldn't really bring freedom to apreciate and tolerate diversity of spiritual experience and practice ( what we call religion )"

You think that there is a lot of difference between the naked depiction and with a bomb and you imply that naked presentation is more desecrating than with a bomb but others may think vice-versa and yet another group may think both are equally desecrating and again, another group may think both are not. By taking the first position, are you not trying to put a limitation to others imagination - which needless to say, is against your argument on controlling the imagination.

You accuse the secular suspects of being 'one way' in the blaming game. But you can't see that you use the same trick when it comes to the freedom/imagination. Try to probe yourself first before you probe others!

What we are discussing about is the cartoons. How is it necessary that I should condemn MF Hussain in the same breath as I write anything against - in fact I did not - the cartoons. When the occasion comes and if time permits, I will say my opinion about MF Hussain. I am not a politician or an 'intellectual' to be always balanced in every moment and I do not need to please everybody at every time. Though I agree with Ravi that it is necessary to have a balanced view to have a positive dialogue, I do not think it is necessary that opinion about all the related past incidents must be stated at the very onset of dialogue!

It is worthwhile to remember here that this is one of the arguements used by Modi et al in Gujart as a justification for the pogrom - that when the Kar Sevaks were murdered no secularists condemned it. It does say some thing about you, doesn't it? (See, I do not need to probe)

It is untrue for you to say now that “I NEVER raised the question HOW” as you have previously posted that “It was the artists expression of what he might have been like. You dont agree with him.. dont! to you its blasphemous to think about how his face might have looked like.. but to stop others from conjuring that image up is plain nonsensical!”
Either you are being dishonest by trying to spin a new version to the story or somebody else used your name to post that comment. Be frank and tell us honestly, which is the truth.

I wonder if you are living on this planet when you say "You could use the sword then to impose.. NOT NOW!!" May be you meant they should use more lethal weapons, instead of sword?

Scott - wait a second, you say that whether or not a person is offended is totally subjective, but that's a stretch for me. If we respect ourselves, and respect others to the same degree, then it would follow that whether or not we share all the views of others that we will respect his person, including his spiritual beliefs. When we begin to feel that it's all right for one to have fun (or profit) at another's expense, whether the expense is bodily injury or exploitation, or disrupting their spiritual equilibrium, if we don't recognize the price the person who is put into discomfort is feeling then we are allowing a hypocrite to grow inside of us. That's if we can agree that most people wish for respect for themselves, including their person and their spiritual beliefs.

When you really don’t believe in what you say you believe, you need to surround yourself with many others that believe in the same thing. You then begin to feel that what you have bought into has a basis of truth, for there is pseudo strength in a collective belief. And to further shore up your frail faith through more believers, you begin to force others to believe what you believe, either through political pressure (the fear of isolation), legislation (the fear of punishment), or by force (the fear of death or injury). This is religion at it ugliest. And this is the telltale sign you really do not believe in your God.

Those who have true faith in their God or Gods, whatever their religion or belief, do not need to force their beliefs on anyone. For if their beliefs are based upon truth that truth will resonate and permeate with all of humanity. Every person of faith needs to look into their hearts and know that God does not need them to force a belief or faith in Him. (For even God cannot force you to believe in Him.) Your faith is weak, for it is based upon and evil God who would kill or punish his own children, and deep in your hearts you know this to be not true. Your actions, to force your belief upon others, are the most obvious displays of fear and a lack of faith that you can portray.

Nobody, and I emphasize nobody, can be offended unless they choose to be. To be offended brings oneself to anger, which has a basis in fear. Our Muslim brothers must begin to understand that they are being driven by the fear that we all possess when we buy into a religion that is handed down to us from generations past and we choose to vicariously experience the ancient’s holy epiphanies. Somebody else’s experiences are not our own and are therefore not our truths.

If they want the rest of the world to respect them and their Prophet, they need to display to us that they really believe. Their reaction to the caricatures of their Prophet is a true reflection of their weak faith and their attempt to force us to align with their beliefs. Just remember, the strongest defense is no defense. For defense is proof positive you are in fear. No defense implies strength.

RKL: You have quite an imagination...

1. "Yet you complain that the 'secular suspects' did not denounce MF Hussain. If you believe that it is everybody's right to their own imagination, why do you care if they object or not. It should be a non-issue for you"

I really didnt care personally. But I am just trying to bring out the "Selective Distress" that the pseudo-seculars display day in and day out!

"How is it necessary that I should condemn MF Hussain in the same breath as I write anything against"

Same explanation. Its the Selective distress that is so symptomatic of ridiculous hypocrisy!

"It is untrue for you to say now that “I NEVER raised the question HOW” as you have previously posted that “It was the artists expression of what he might have been like."

There are two questions here:

i. that Prophet was indeed illustrated.
ii. How he was depicted as in .. a derogatory manner.

I am talking about the sin of "how" or "what" he actually looked like is a restriction to your imagination. You can put a restriction to your imagination and creativity .. but not others! They will conjure up an image and think or show. I am talking about THAT issue. I doubt you got it anyhow.

"that when the Kar Sevaks were murdered no secularists condemned it. It does say some thing about you, doesn't it? "

Teesta Setalvad's statement to BBC was one of the MOST shameful that ANY intelligent person could give! I cannot and do NOT condone the killings thereafter in Gujarat.. BUT ANY ONE who can chide at someone who takes exception to those statements from Teesta and the ilk .. is downright heartless and a fanatic! And its not me who is "justifying" the killings.. but ANYONE who feels for those terrorist-fanatics who went to burn the embassy in Beirut or act violently by pointing to their "hurt"over the cartoons! Cartoons or no cartoons.. violence here is unjustified. Just as Teesta or no Teesta - killings in Gujarat were unjustified.. just as Nude Goddess or no Nude Goddess.. violence against Hussain was unjustified!

I am sticking by my views - a wrong is a wrong is a wrong! But for some folks - specifically the "holier-than-thou" seculars in India.. some bloodshed is more justified than other.. of course, their heart beating for non-violence notwithstanding!!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Very true Vijay , I think the western perspective along with uncle Sam is a bit(lot) flawed as far as this concerned, Osama's men bring down the twin towers and see Mr. Bush goes to Iraq hunting for WMDs, now its the turn of Iraq.

Vijay,

Congratulations for giving us a very balanced analysis. Of course its hypocrisy at its worst. What I liked most was that you gave here both sides of the coin.

I keep getting the feeling that gradually religion is becoming a monster - to be obeyed implicitly, fought over if it is mine and ridiculed if it isn't.

One interesting fact thats worth pondering over. The ancient religions which have flourished and predate most others by centuries, are the ones that do not prescribe missionary activity to actively go out and wean away others from different faiths - Hinduism, Judaism and Zoarastrism come to mind. It is not part of their dogma to actively convert others to the 'one true path to God'. Perhaps if this one activity could be curbed maybe we will not have so much strife.

That should be Zoarastrianism

Veg head -

I agree that respect is a need that we all share and we should do our utmost to respect others and their beliefs.

My point is, that there is NEVER going to be a time when our words or ideas might not offend someone...never. Because what is offensive to one is not to another. Being offended is not something that is done to you, it is something that you choose. Granted the choice is made unconsciously, but it IS a choice.

And while I do my best to choose words that will be uplifting and increase harmony, I know that no matter how carefully I choose my words that someone at some time will be bothered by them. I guess I am just confused by anyone that would threaten to kill other innoccent people over a cartoon. We are so insensed by a paper that publishes a bad cartoon...how about being insensed at those that would threaten death to innoccents because of it? How about being offended by people that are willing to beat women because they have shown their face? How about being offended by a million men, women and children brutally murdered in Africa because they had a tribal marking on their drivers licenses? How about being offended by whole generations dying of AIDS, a completely preventable disease? How about being offended by the death of thousands of people to starvation while governments pay farmers to allow grain to rot in silos in order to jack up the price of it?

I realize that I've gone way off track here, but my point is that this is small potatoes. I choose to be offended at things that harm people, not at a papers choice to run a bad cartoon. Want to make a statement? Encourage friends and relatives and others in your community to (peacefully) not but the paper. Guess what? The cartoons will go away. But tell a newsman that he can't print something and you will just get more and more of it.

It's time that we are offended not by the words and drawings of others, but by their actions.

Peace,
Scott.

Scott, don't get offended by words? If words didn't lead to actions I might agree. Just looking for a common thread here. Is respect a common thread? Dehumanizing the "enemy" is part and parcel to any campaign of violence. My vote is for more respect, more real news, and less "kidding around" with what people hold dear to them, especially if it can be perceived as a campaign to ridicule them and those they hold most sacred.
I am offended by the same things you are. But I see that those atrocities are first thought of, then spoken of, then acted upon.
Peace, and light.......

Veg,
I agree with your perspective on this veg. And as I said we should all do our best to not verbally spread poison. My only fear is that we become so frightened of offending that we no longer speak what is in our hearts and that repressed expression leads to real poison. An expressed emotion, thought etc. can be reasoned with. Unexpressed emotions and thoughts become toxic and disconnect us.

Peace,
Scott.

Couldn't resist posting this gem I came across from another list. It is a quote from a book by S.R. Goel written about 50 years ago. Another lens to view this recent crisis through.

"The monotheist reaches the limit of the ludicrous when he struts around as an iconoclast or a butshikan, saying that the false Gods of the infidels could not save themselves from his sword and fire. He secretly expects the idols to perform the same sort of miracles as he attributes to the saliva, the hair, the shoe, the shirt, and the shroud of his own prophets and saints. But if he is requested that his own relics be subjected to the same physical test, he loses his balance, shouts that his religion is being insulted, and takes to violence at very short notice."

Scott, I agree that unexpressed emotions can lead to toxic feelings. That's one reason why pentup emotions can come out with a roar when there's finally something on the table that roundly insults.
There is so much that is unexpressed at this time, (eg Bush's "if you're not with me you're against me"), those things you listed earlier, worry about climate change and intolerance and more than anything lack of compassion and respect. So if we can agree that respect is a goal worthy of pursuing, we're ahead of the pack, which so often blindly justifies the rich man's argument for finger pointing which is the recipe for war.

I have repeated it earlier many times. :-). I am repeating again for the gullible intellectuals of the modern world.
My solution to CNNization is STOP (all capitals) watching TV and don't support the media. Give yourself a 6 months TV break and decide which TV program do really need to watch.

Hi Everybody,

Can we please remember that the 'overreaction' to the cartoons could simply mean that the people involved are tired of seeing their loved ones die in poverty and war? They are tired of seeing their children lacking clear plans for their education, when they are still alive? In the West, many rich --and bored-- people are discussing this matter in the comfort of a chair in front of their computer, no less.

Dear Veg and Scott,
I so agree with you! It's all about respect. Of course, we still have to say the truth and it can be done with love and respect. I doubt that those cartoons qualify as truth. They were an instrument for taunting people who have already suffered enough. Possibly those same cartoons had behind them some strategy for instigating riots. Who knows? The least we can do in the West is showing more respect in the face of the atrocities that those people are facing.

Dear Bloggers,
Do you remember when the New York Times was keeping count of the Palestinian children being killed? Every morning I sadly faced the cover page with figures in the hundreds. Many of us have forgotten but I am sure that the children's parents and relatives, the friends and neighbors haven't forgotten. And this is just one example in one country.

No more taunting please. There are so many opportunities for political satire, why pick on desperate people and their religion?

Love,
Donatella

RKL:
May be if you read my message slowly and in a pensive manner the stark truth of the matter may dawn upon you and make you realise that every one of the radical islamists is now under strict surveillence and will be booted out to his native 'pure' nation AFTER that nation is totally ruined economically,rendered politically unstable and ready to disintegrate.
These Imams, Muftis,Mullahs Ayatollahs and their fanatic supporters have never tasted the true pleasure of freedom and are suffering from the suffocating nature of the dictates of their religion and hide their castrated intellect by adopting bullying tactics against non-muslims while demonstrating eunuch like behaviour and lack of civic manhood in debating,admitting and remedying the glaring atrocities sanctioned and carried through under the explicit blessing of their 'holy book' and their cerebrally asphyxiated interpretation of it which still reeks of the stale atmosphere of the dungeons of 15th century backwardness.

Sid harth - Got it!
Now, it is really beyond my capacity. What you can do is to drop a mail to Deepak - use the ID in the contact page - and ask for help and remain hopeful that some help will be extended and one day, you would be able to come out of the 'dungeons' you built for yourself. See u then.

I disagree with Vijay sippani completely. Freedom of speech is non-negotiable. Any cartoon will offend someone or the other. If you draw a cartoon on Gandhi, it will hurt a follower of Gandhi, and so on. Art is meant to offend and provoke. If you do not agree with someone's opinion you can say your own thing, write your own plays, or drwa your own cartoons ( As Iran has threatened to publish Holocaust cartoons, great!). Just beacause the Muslim's dont believe in portairture of prpophets should others follow it. Just because some Hindus dont eat beef, ashould the Indian givt ban the sell of beef? Or because some Hindus are vegetarians should the govt ban the sell of meat? No. the govt should only ensure that vegetables are available, and that non-vegetarian foods ( or medicines for that matter) are properly labelled.

On MF Hussain, Vijay sippani's views are totally illiterate. Hussain is a great artist and his nude Saraswati is an artistic creation, has any Hindyu been offended by it, until the Bjarang Dal orchstrated the protests? He does not draw Allah in the nude because it is not a part of the artistic tradition. But drawing Hindu Gods and goddesses eroticaly, or writing about them erotically is a part of the Indian artistic tradition. has Vijay sippani seen the Chola brozes depictin Parvati, has he read Kalidas's description of parvati's thighs? Or the depiction of various dalliances betwen gods and godesses in the Puranas? Please dont peddle us yoiu Victorian Hinduism to us Mr Sippani.

As to the depiction of Christ in the nude has Mr sippani heard of Renee Cox's "Yo Mama's Last supper" where the 12 men are various blak personalities and the artiste in the nude is Christ? There might have been pritest against it, but the art work exiss and is considered a good piece of art by many.Before demanding religious tolerance, the muslims need to practice oit themselves and not call idolators as kafirs. Just because you dont worship idols, you cannot stop from others doing so. Just because you dont depict MUhammad or any other prophet, you acnnot stop others from doing so.

Utkal,

I agree with most of what you say. I think MF Hussain is a sensationist but he has every right to depict any god or deity to paint anyway he wishes. One can criticize him for his choice of subjects or taste or lack of it, but can't ban him from doing it.

Regards,

Ravi

Utkal,

I find that I agree with much that you say. The freedom to express is a natural right. The thing that is most disturbing to me about this whole situation is that if the newspapers bow down to the violence and threats of the protesters, when does it end? What is the next group that takes offense and uses violence to silence the press. We know that "being offended" is completely subjective, so what expression of speech will next be stopped?

If papers are afraid to draw a cartoon of Muhamed (and the drawing was pretty tame by the standards of most papers) what's next? What happens when your form of speech is threatened? What happens to bloggers when their opinions are not allowed on the internet? After all, there are a lot offensive things said, even here on the Chopra site. Those of you that think that this is OK, what happens when they come for your free speech?

I see this as a slippery slope, and though I believe in civil discourse I know that we can never completely adjust our language or expressions so that they will not offend.

The problem is not that a newspaper published a relatively tame drawing of someone's prophet, the problem is that there are people that are willing to behead others over it. I believe we should focus our sense of "outrage" on that.

Peace,
Scott.

I do not understand Hypocrisy of arab world.Coutry like Saudi arabia and iran where religion other than islam trated very badly and still those coutries are making noise about cartoons.This is clash of civilization.West Vs Islam.....

DJ

It's real simple, DJ,
You shouldn't kick the dog when he's down,
or: the identity deeply imbedded in their relgious worldview(s), a defitnly no go,
have some decancy, for god's sake..
that modus operandi just puts oil on the solidarity engine, wrongly used, or: for the wrong cause,

Ignorance..
from both sides..

Love, Passion,

I have no problem with protests... I think it's a great way to blow off some steam and get a message across. However, when those protests turn violent and call for the deaths and beheadings of innocent people, I tend to not understand.

I do not begin to understand, even just a little bit, the beliefs and customs of the Muslim religion. I want to try to understand them. But when I see "death" and gruesome language being directed at so many, than I really have a hard time comprehending their desire to inflict pain and misery on a wide section of our society.

Why not get mad at the death and distruction that is tearing apart our world?

I hope that this kind of hatred can be met with some level of compassion and non-violent communications. We need a Ghandi or King to emerge from all the hatred that is present in our beautiful world.

Now more than ever, we, the people on this site that come here for inspiration, need to "be the change we wish to see in the world". Let's spread that in each of our lives today, tomorrow and everyday.

Thank you all for enlightening me on many points of view!

First they came for Israel, then they came for America...
Feb 7, 2006
by Dennis Prager

In 1945, the anti-Nazi German pastor Martin Niemoller wrote the following:
"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."

This famous statement can be updated for Europeans:

First they came for Israel, and we didn't speak up because we weren't Jews. Then they came for Lebanon's Christians, and we didn't speak up because we weren't Maronites. Then they came for America, and we didn't speak up because we weren't Americans. Then they came for Sudan's blacks, and we didn't speak up because we weren't Sudanese blacks. Then they came for us, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for us.

As long as Muslim demonstrators only shouted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," Europe (and the rest of the world's Left) found reasons either to ignore the Nazi-like evil inherent in those chants (and the homicidal actions that flowed from them) or to blame America and Israel for the hatred.

But like the earlier Nazis, our generation's fascists hate anything good, not merely Jews and Americans. And now the Damascus embassy of Norway, a leading anti-Israel "peace at any price" country, has been torched. And more and more Norwegians, and Brits, and French, and Dutch, and Swedes, and the rest of the European appeasers who blamed America for 9-11 and blamed Israel for Palestinian suicide bombings, are beginning to wonder whether there just might be something morally troubling within the Islamic world.

Some on the Left here and in Europe are beginning to reassess whether America and Israel or their Islamic enemies are at fault.

The fact that major newspapers in most Western European countries published some or all of the cartoons that triggered the riots against Denmark, the country in which the offending cartoons of Muhammad first appeared, was a statement that at least some in Europe have had it with appeasement of Islamic violence.

And here in America, a left-of-center columnist for the Los Angeles Times, Tim Rutten, just wrote: "It's no longer possible to overlook the culture of intolerance, hatred and xenophobia that permeates the Islamic world."

As it happens, I have sympathy with the notion that newspapers and others need to be sensitive to religious, including Muslim, sensibilities. However, when Muslim governments and religious spokesmen attack the West for its insensitivity to Muslims and its anti-Muslim prejudice, one has entered the Twilight Zone. Because nowhere in the world is there anywhere near the religious bigotry and sheer hatred of other religions that exists in the Muslim world.

Christians nearly everywhere in the Arab and Muslim worlds are usually second-class citizens at best and terribly treated at worst.

The Taliban Islamic regime in Afghanistan blew up the unique Buddhist sculptures in their country because they didn't want even a trace of a non-monotheistic faith to survive in an Islamic country.

About a million non-Arab and non-Muslim men, women and children have been slaughtered by the Islamic regime in Sudan.

Nigerian Christians are periodically murdered by Islamic mobs.

And regarding Jews, Andrew Sullivan writes in this week's Time: "The Arab media run cartoons depicting Jews and the symbols of the Jewish faith with imagery indistinguishable from that used in the Third Reich."

As for the riots and Islamic government protests, one question needs to be posed to these people: Which casts Islam in a worse light -- political cartoons depicting Muhammad, or Muslims who murder innocents around the world in the name Allah and Islam?

Did any Jews riot when the Los Angeles Times published a cartoon of the holiest site in Judaism, the Western Wall, with its stones reconfigured to spell "hate"?

Did any Christians riot when museums displayed "Piss Christ," a crucifix submerged in artist Andres Serrano's urine?

What we have is a culture largely based on saving face and honor juxtaposed with a Judeo-Christian Western culture largely based on saving liberty and innocent life.

All of us, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, should pray that the better one wins.

Dennis Prager is a radio talk show host, author, and contributing columnist for Townhall.com.

It seems to me that any argument put forth by anyone to justify murder and destruction to innocent people is completely anti-ANYTHING SPIRITUAL, regardless of what label you put on it. And if anyone really analyzes the cartoon - they would take away the irony it displays. People killing ( WITH BOMBS ) in the name of a peaceful prophet/religion.

Beside the U.S.'s military agression - which I don't feel is a representation of the surfs -er citizens' mindset - I would venture to say that these fanatics, on a daily basis, do more to inflame the west and Europe than the other way around. These people share with VERY FEW fanatical groups this ideal that it is cool to kidnap people for some end. Somehow this is more acceptable than potentially sacriligous depictions which, I feel, are illustrating how some are hiding behind religion to carry out their attrocities and agendas.

A quick look into how the Republicans are activating all of the phony Christians with Ann Coulter being the demon leader of their cults. Anytime a tough, important issue is on the table for elections, the Republicans begin a GAY campaign to pull these freaks out of the woodwork with inflaming hateful messages to dilute the real topics at hand and to create an opposition group. Take your pick Avoiding a National ID Card or illegal gay marriages? Phony christians would rather vote away their rights to keep a few gays from marrying - as though marriage is some sacred act these days.

I could almost justify attacking THE individuals that had a hand in the publication, but really - burning embacies, killing people?

JEWS aren't nuking the planet everytime someone eats pork. Is Islam teaching that violence is the answer to all dislikes? Women are molested, raped, disfigured everyday in that region - AND IT'S LEGAL. I'm guessing Allah is looking upon that with just enjoyment? I'm inclined to feel otherwise.

What would Iran do if we began spouting that all NATO countries should attack that country? They would go freaking nuts, but somehow it is OK if they spew rhetoric along those lines.

There are millions of people filled with self hate and loathing - and with such individuals there is always the seeking of ANY catalist that will justify their release of this negative energy. An orgasm of sorts, if you will.

If you have ever been EXTREMELY horny and without a mate - I'd imagine this is how these people feel day in out with this need to hurt someone, but no excuse to do it. This would explain the frenzy they find themselves in - completely out of control.

You don't shoot someone for speeding - there is an obvious moral process that the punishment should not exceed the crime. At some point in time is not the punishment a crime in itself? Taking it further aren't ALL punishments a crime in itself? Taking God's matters into your own hand only creates bad karma for yourself.

On more than one occasion a good friend caught me in a bad mood ( MY PROBLEM MY DECISION TO BE PISSED ) and I tore into them for no reason. They were there, there were an excuse to release. I felt better b/c the energy was gone from me, but I felt terrible b/c they didn't deserve that treatment. It could be something as simple as wearing shoes in the house. Which is worse, some dirt on the floor or verbal abuse? I was WAY in the wrong.

THIS HAS AS MUCH TO DO WITH RELIGION - AS THE IRAQ WAR HAS TO DO WITH LIBERATION.

Vijay, your argument ( i feel ) is weak regarding the West's indescretions. If your point of view rings true I dare say that African Americans would still be slaves in my country - for weren't they murdered & harrassed for speaking their mind and saying things that were against the grain and inflamed certain groups of violent people ( KKK for one ).

Cartoons use images to convey ideas. Look at the cartoon and get the message. Then judge the cartoon on the message, not the image. If JEWS were policing Mosiac law, a whole shiteload of us would be dead.

If these people are insulted by the message QUIT EMBODYING IT.

RKL:
YOUUU.....MUSSST......REEEAAD..... MY....POOOSST.....SLOOOWWLY and loosen your 'langoat' to improve blood flow and fresh air to your seat of thinking.
I hope you have cashed in your chips and booked your flight because they are onto you.
Don't say that I did not warn you.
Warm regards.....Sid Harth.

Faroukh Sheikh (TV Host): "The cartoons were deplorable, the reaction is condemnable". For me this is perhaps the best summation of this whole ghastly incident.

Dear Vijay,

Amongst all the hypocrites around (choose your pick), your blunt message is loud and clear.

Hope you maintain it over the years & don't get engulfed by the pseudo-secular garb!

Best regards,
Prashant

P.S. - With all due respect to MF Hussain's world-famous creativity, can he ever dare to draw prophet or Jesus/Mary in nude? He has done it thousand times when it comes to Hindu Goddesses & has only apologised & gone scot-free shamelessly!

If West countries believe freedom of expression, Why prison every talks about the myth Holocaust? I think freedom of expression is a lie.

Dara,

I fully agree with him

Scott,

We do not go about punching people in the face to test their commitment to non-violence.

Ludicrous! NINE people are dead; all over the depiction of a cartooned prophet!!

What sense is there in such violence?

There is NO sense!

What there is; are too many poor countries fed UP; and they are using any little excuse to incite warring against any powers that be.

They are fueled with so much inner anger and hatred; that nine people are dead..because of lack of self-control.

Lack of self-control! I am sure, the Prophet who was depicted in a cartoon; would be saddened, that this actions of the people; cost the lives of nine people!!

ARE we experiencing global madness? In Egypt; men are swarming the shippers building/burning, destroying. Why? Did the building kill those lost at sea? Will it ease the sorrowing heart? NO!

Why are "men" so eagre to kill and destroy? What chemical exists within "men" that would kill people; over a cartoon depiction? What kind of men, kill over that?

Prophets speak about peace, love, compassion; NO prophet would want blood on his hands, from something violent like this.

Time for women to rule the world; before men destroy it with nukes; and we have another ice-age?

North

I agree with you North.

The world is over-reacting. I agree the cartoons can be offensive, but so much violence is not called for. If only the differences in opinion were accepted. I think the degree of being offended in any situation depends on the degree of ego one has.

RKL,

to compare punching a peaceful person in the face and drawing a cartoon is beyond ridiculous. I don't seem to remember violence and murder happening when Andres Serrano created "Piss Christ" (a lovely piece of art with a cross submerged in urine).

Why is it that so many people think that they have the right to "not be offended"? Since when? If we have this right, how do we enforce it? Who enforces it? Who decides what is offensive or not offensive?

This is so simple...you don't like a newspaper, magazine or television show? Don't watch the show, don't buy the paper, don't open the magazine.

Weren't we all warned in the U.S and western countries(ad nauseam I might ad), how it was not the religion of Islam that was responsible for the Sept. 11th deaths? Weren't we all told by our own government and religious leaders that Islam was a religion of peace? Because frankly, I was OFFENDED by the murder of 3000 inoccent men, women and children on Sept. 11th. Neither I, nor anyone that I know, nor anyone that I heard of threatened to behead inoccent Moslem people for acts of a group of fanatics.

Where are the warnings from governments and religious leaders of Moslem nations telling people that no one should kill inoccent Danes over a FUCKING Cartoon?

I'm offended by poverty, wars over the price of oil or over some stupid ideology or oven more ridiculous religion. I'm offended by the idea that we can kill in the name of Muhamed, or Christ or Shiva. I'm offended by Middle-eastern oil barons that keep their people so poor and uneducated that they think that a cartoon is a reason to take the life of their brothers. I am offended by the mindless murder of bombs dropped on someone's family, or their farm, or their factory. I am offended by nations that have the destruction of another nation as part of their national policy.

Now I feel better.

Peace,
Scott.

Scott, glad you feel better; we all feel better, when it starts with one feeling of betterness(smiles)

Scott, I left you a VIM(very important message) on your Dad's thread... a possible book-deal for you, dear friend(wink)

North

I feel anger of the over-reaction..but, even moreso; I feel sadness for all the angry protesters

so lost in their hatred, that self-control and respect for "life" has fled their logic..and nine perished for what? What has this actions/and deaths resolved exactly?

I feel I must work hard within; to feel compassion inside me instead of wanting to rather sway towards the darker side of my yin yang; of anger. IT can be done..Can we heal this world of hatred?

Who has the ball?

North

Yes, I agree North. The over reaction by the protesters is very likely based on their feelings of powerlessness.

I don't know what the answer is other than to deal with our own demons...hopefully that is enough.

Scott.

Hi all,
I haven't had a chance to follow what has been written here except reading Vijay's intial post. But someone sent this to me and thought some of you might be interested in this perspective:

"Andrew Scott takes on the question of whether the publishing of the cartoon is really a matter of free speech. His writing is especially poignant as he can convey directly the experiences of Moroccan Muslims.

Read this commentary at Andrew's blog, "Andrew in Morocco", http://arscott7000.blogspot.com

Andrew is currently living and studying in Morocco as a Rotary Ambassodorial Scholar."

Yes, I agree North. The over reaction by the protesters is very likely based on their feelings of powerlessness.

I don't know what the answer is other than to deal with our own demons...hopefully that is enough.

Scott.

Hi Scott,
The Truth is - Truth needs no defense. It is not tied into pictures, cartoons, beliefs or opinions.

What a sad world of general madness. People willing to kill and die over idealogy, over cartoons, over tragedies, over land and property.

To awake spiritually takes a miracle.
I see the suffering within people, in events, and compassion washes through me. I too have suffered over 911, and personal sadness, in the death of ones I love.

The 'way' out, the 'way' through, is to step into Clear Awareness. It really does mean leaving the current world. It is a 'place' where few reside. It is worthy of giving up much, to discover this 'heaven', right here, right Now.

Love and Blessings,
~ Kate

I did get your message North. I sent you a note...let me know if it doesn't get there. We both have hotmail accounts and sometimes hotmail doesn't talk to itself that well...go figure.

Scott.

Well, from the perspective of the protesters; we must realize, they feel spiritually "raped" and that a great public ridicule has been cast.

IF we could find a way; to see from their heart; perhaps we will regain a more compassionate outlook; and a healing path can be walked in harmony?

All it would take; is a public appology; why can't the media do that? Free speech was initially born to ensure tyranny never ruled! Free speech was NOT intended to mock, ridicule, nor defame and degrade...

To ME<, even only being a free-lance advocate; but via the newspaper; I am appalled really, at the odacity the paper took, to print the depiction of someones sacred idol.

IT shows that paper has lost it's unbiasness; which to me, gives too much weight and credibility to commit acts of violence, such is occurring!

that paper NEW what would happen; so for them to USE free speech as the right to do so...

Is scraping the bottom of the decency barrel!

North

North,

A political cartoon is meant to be an opinion, just like any opinion piece in the paper, it is not neccessarily the papers position...only he writer (or in this case the cartoonist). So in my opinion this really isn't a case of the paper losing its objectivity, rather it is defending its write to publish someone's opinion.

Really, it's just like here on the blog, we all have opinions and the blog allows us to voice them. The freedom to express that which we feel/believe is the cornerstone of freedom IMHO.
Deepak's family and all those involved with administering the blog have defended many whose opinions, or manners have offended many. Their argument (and I think it's a good one) is that we don't need to read those posters that bother us, but their involvement is important in order to get the full spectrum of opinion. I think this Danish paper is doing the same thing. And I feel it's important to not be bullied or become fearful of publishing unpopular opinions. As a great History teacher of mine once said "The majority of people are often wrong", so it's important to listen to the minority with an open mind.

That being said, I pray for calm and collective quiet so that the world can put this into perspective.

Peace,
Scott.

Peace,
Scott.

PS - I'm as excited as you are to discuss a project about my Dad!

Me too Scott; just replied to your EM; with Richards(the author) contact INFO!!

I really gushed to him about you and Kristin; and the nice path you both walk on... some of your history I knew of: sports, titles, injury,,,still on a sports path..etc... I told him your Dad would be quite proud of his "boy"...

I am confident a book-deal is in the works Scott...(wink) and HEY!! I may be designing the cover!! OR working with Richard on it... lol

well,,,who'd have thought huh? lol

North

Dear Kristin,
Thank you for sharing a wonderful article. Andrew Scott's view of both sides of the isuue is the one I have liked the most so far. It is both compassionate and conciliatory, while looking also for dialogue. I think open dialogue and compromise will ultimately save the day.
Love,
Donatella

Hello Vijay,

Thank you for your blog..

This issue has become so huge to the point that people are capitalizing.

One may ask a key question:

Why, who - again I ask who created this problem
why was this cartoon created.

outside the freedom of speech ..... where is the root cause coming from

My take on this issue is Someone did this
DELIBERATELY not because of religion
but powers to be actually wanted this kind of
reaction to take place so that it gives
the western countries the right to go back and
destroy innocent lives.

"Ignorance of Islam" "Ignorance of culture"
Ignorance of values morals ethics and respect
of great masters who came to this world with
a message

But the distorted humanbehaviour
will destroy everything in this world
greedy power money in the name of God

I am so sad to see that in the name of Religion
the world and innocent people are the victims
of Greed Power and Controll.

I wonder how long we have before we will destroy
each other.

I am watch people have actually gone insane
does anyone take a moment in the media and realize how much havoc they are creating even
though by not showing the cartoons they have
made this a historical event.

Vijay.. look into this deeper it will give you
an answer..

I have mine.. it is all about ...conquering the
land ultimately, destroying structures, and destroying lives ultimately.

That's my view and opinion

The only solution is to educate ourseleves and believe
in humanity for the sake of saving a life and
not destroying.

I always respect what people want to believe
and what faith they choose

But draw a line when one mocks the great prophets
or avatars that have been on this earth.

peace
Ashie

Good points Aishie.. it would seem indeed; it was a "setup" to beget the exact response they got!

Just like here in the west; when kids come home from being teased at school...we would tell not to respond..the "bad guys" will get bored and tire of not getting a response from you...soon as they know what can make you "hurt" that is what they will do.

Seems like little boys play the same games when they are men?

Ultimately; the compassion should be with the offended,,the ones wreaking havoc; to me, they were "pushed" into the reaction...though self-control on their part; would have sent a bigger message than destruction and 13 deaths to date!!

North

The strategy, is definately a warring one; and it reminds me of Pavlov's Law?

North

I'm reminded of a cartoon strip that appeared in "The Young World", a supplement of The Hindu. It was about something great that Prophet Mohammad did. The next day, I read an apology from the editor for hurting the sentiments of the Muslims!

The cartoon strip didn't debase the prophet. Why then should the muslims protest? After all, the whole funda of the cartoon strip was to convey a message to the children without making it too textbook-ish. Is that wrong? Must children learn the greatness of their prophet only by reading Koran in a language they probably don't even understand?

That way, if the Hindus also ask people to apologise for the cartoon versions of the Ramayana and Mahabharata, then how will our traditions survive? How are the Indian folktales to compete with Little Mermaid and Mickey Mouse?

Hmm, very Interesting tidbit:

CIA-linked plane leaves northern Ont. amid unanswered questions

Jim Bronskill
Canadian Press

Thursday, February 09, 2006
OTTAWA -- A shadowy Twin Otter plane linked to the Central Intelligence Agency has returned to the United States after spending four months in an Ontario hamlet near Sault Ste. Marie.
Flight data shows the DeHavilland DHC-6-300 left tiny Bar River last Friday, apparently following extensive repairs.
It stopped briefly in Akron, Ohio, before landing Saturday in Smithfield, N.C., a known aviation hub for U.S. intelligence. On Wednesday it flew to the Manassas, Va., airport, not far from CIA headquarters.
U.S. Federal Aviation Administration records show the aircraft, with tail number N6161Q, is registered to Aviation Specialties, one of several firms believed to be CIA front companies.
The plane has reportedly been spotted in Nevada, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Malta and Ireland.
It had set down in Sault Ste. Marie in early October after taking off from Michigan's Jackson County Airport. The 22-seat turboprop then made the short trip to a private airport just southwest of Bar River.
An airport official contacted in December said he does not discuss planes that use the facility, which houses a service centre, out of respect for customers' privacy.
Records indicate aircraft allegedly controlled by the CIA continue to use Canadian airports amid unanswered questions about their activities.
Last fall, the Bloc Quebecois pressed the federal government to reveal details of the flights, concerned that U.S. intelligence may be ferrying terrorist suspects through Canada to countries where they could be tortured.
The Council of Europe has appointed a special investigator, Swiss Senator Dick Marty, to study concerns about CIA flights and allegations of secret U.S.-run prisons in central and eastern Europe.
The Public Safety Department said last month a federal review of landings by alleged CIA planes at Canadian airports found no evidence of "illegal activities."
A department official declined to elaborate.
Flight data show at least seven different planes owned by reputed CIA shell corporations have landed at Canadian airports in Newfoundland, Nunavut and Ontario since mid-2005.
An 11-seat Beech turboprop with tail number N157A arrived in Keflavik, Iceland, on Wednesday after taking off from Goose Bay, N.L., the previous day. It had made its way to Newfoundland from Raleigh Durham International Airport in North Carolina.
Portions of Canadian Security Intelligence Service records about the supposed CIA flights were withheld from release to The Canadian Press.
CSIS cited provisions of the Access to Information Act that allow agencies to refuse to disclose records that deal with "detecting, preventing or suppressing subversive or hostile activities."
Civil Liberties groups, including Amnesty International, have also demanded answers from Ottawa about the mysterious flights.
Amnesty has urged concerned people to seek more information about what laws and standards were applied during the federal review of the landings.
An interim report last month from the Council of Europe said officials had no doubt Canada would "shed full light on the allegations."
© The Canadian Press 2006

-- -- -- --

"People seem not to see that their opinion
of the world is also a confession of their character."
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

-- -- -- --

ouch!

North

Scott - U are right if it is the action that is compared. The intent, however, was not to compare the acts. It was about the method that was used. Perhaps, by now, you might have read the reason why it was published.

You may also note that many U.S. states have laws prohibiting burning cross. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/crossburn_04-07-03.html)

To know where will it end, the following excerpt has some answers for you: "Nobody has an absolute right to freedom. Civilisation is the story of humans sacrificing freedom so as to live together in harmony. We do not need Hobbes to tell us that absolute freedom is for newborn savages. All else is compromise...Every day newspapers decide on the balance of boldness, offence, taste, discretion and recklessness. They must decide who is to be allowed a voice and who not. They are curbed by libel laws, common decency and their own sense of what is acceptable to readers. Speech is free only on a mountain top; all else is editing."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2025511_1,00.html

RKL,
Cross burning is prohibited on someone elses property because it is trespassing AND you do not have free speech rights on anothers property (for example at your job or at someones home your right to speech is curtailed by their propterty rights). If you have a cross you are welcome to burn it on your own property as long as it does not break fire codes.

No right is absolute if it trumps anothers right. But we do NOT have the right to NOT be offended. Essentially a paper can print offensive material, however, the marketplace will control that. If enough people are offended they will not buy the paper and the paper will go out of business. That is what controls speech in a newspaper.

Libel is enforced because it encroaches upon anothers property rights. When a person is falsely accused of something it effects their ability to earn a living (property)and therefore falls under the auspices of "trumping anothers rights". So the perpetrators of libel can be sued civilly for the losses incurred by the libelous statement. Once again, market forces will then control the speech of the paper.

None of this applies in this case. The paper published an opinion, Muhammed is not alive today so libel does not apply (he cannot incur a financial loss). People are free to read or NOT read this publication, so this is not a situation of speech rights encroaching upon private property. No one is forced to read these views.

Having said all of that. I DO believe that the publishing of these cartoons was an unwise decision at best and at worst tactless and rude, but I believe threatening to kill innoccent people FAR outweighs being offended. We can all disagree, we can all peacefully protest, but it crosses the line to threaten death for a cartoon.

Peace,
Scott.

I BELONGING TO HINDU RELIGION SEEN THROUGH THE SITE OF THE HONEST PEOPLE OF THE MUSLIM RELIGION AND COME TO KNOW MANY GOOD THINGS ABOUT THEM AND ACCORDING TO THERE HOLY BOOK AND THEIR RULES THEY SHOULD NOT KEEP ANY PHOTO OF THEIR PROPHET AND ANY OTHER MESSENGERS OF GOD.SO IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO REVOLT AGAINST THEM AND NO ONE SHOULD STOP THEM FOR TAKING THEIR REVOLT.GOD HAS NOT MADE THE COUNTRIES HE MADE THE WHOLE UNIVERSE SO ANY RELIGION PEOPLE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO ANY RIGHTIOUS THING IN ANY CORNER OF THE WORLD.

AT LAST I WANT TELL EVERY ONE THAT I AND ALONG MY FAMILY GOING TO CHANGE MY RELIGION FROM HINDUISM TO MUSLIM THAT IS IAM ACCEPTING ISLAM ON 21 FEB 2006 WHICH IS A NEW BIRTH FOR ME.