4 ms·

Editors all over the western world exercise more caution when it comes to satire about islam than about christianity and in my opinion it borders a form of raci

by flexie 12y ago

Editors all over the western world exercise more caution when it comes to satire about islam than about christianity and in my opinion it borders a form of racism of low expectations. Then again, who wants to be the next Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Jyllands-Posten, or Charlie Hebdo. It's not like they stand to gain much from running the risk.

briandear 12y ago
Exactly this. The folks in places such as the White House are very quick to condemn some silly anti-Islam YouTube video, yet when the Palestinians make suicide bomber anti-Jew Seasame Street clones, the White House says nothing about the potential for such productions to be "irresponsible." It's like Muslims are little retarded kids and we aren't allowed to make fun of because the power to control themselves is not expected. Of course, when Piss Christ was exhibited in New York, there were some minor protests (mainly over tax payer funding of the exhibit) but I don't recall southern baptist ministers preaching that the artist and all of the museum employees should be shot up with rifles. It's a fact that their are crazies in all religions, and plenty of atheist nut jobs as well, but the propensity to massacre a bunch of people because they're "offended" seems to be much higher among Islam. Which is a bit ironic, since my Muslim friends and families are among the warmest and most welcoming people I know. However, conditions of extreme unemployment, poverty and patriarch-dominance in countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc, combined with a lack of democratic tradition makes these places powerful inncubators for terror. Islam isn't the cause of terrorism, it's merely a vector.
- Retric 12y ago
  Islam and Christianity promote peace. But, pretending that everyone is ready to stand hand in hand and do a sing along is just ridiculous. Don't forget Islam and Christianity along with many other religions also actively promotes violence. In the west we tend to whitewash things, but for a less controversial example if you look at say Peter Pain or fairy tales there very different pre Disneyfication. PS: Remember when a faith says it's ok or even expected to kill {ex: witch} then all it takes is for someone to be convinced that X in on that list and people feel justified. Consider, many people have little to no problem with killing a mass murder.
- PublicEnemy111 12y ago
  I was in Syria before the war(~2006) and there was no patriarch-dominance or extreme unemployment in Aleppo or Damascus. These cities had religious freedom and many Syrians were Catholic. I was fortunate enough to live with locals in both cities for two weeks. The poverty there is not an apples-to-apples comparison to the poverty here in the US or many other parts of the world. There was some dissatisfaction with Al-Assad[1], but most Syrians supported him and continue to do so. This is not the first time extremist muslims have tried to overthrow him. I remember my hosts telling me he crushed a muslim rebellion in what I can only assume was the 80s or 90s [1] I believe this had to do with his greedy brother or cousin who taxed businesses for personal profit
  - enupten 12y ago
    You must've realized by now that American foreign policy (& ergo media biases) is distinctly Saudi-centered. The current debacle with ISIS is likely the result of covert Saudi-CIA funding of "secular" rebels before things went bad (ala Afghanistan): http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-saudi-arabia-iraq-syria-bandar/373181/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isi... That's not to say I like Abbas, of course, but criticism in the US is always the classic manichean "good" vs "evil", which ends up doing more harm than good. The other case, being Iran -whose Muslims are far less radical than those in Saudi- is made to appear as some raving mad state (their Govt. is awful no doubt). Until the propaganda machine changes its mind, you'll keep seeing the violent philosophy of Wahabism spread like a cancer; and being politically correct doesn't particularly help.
    - dragontamer 12y ago
      People need to learn that it's the extremist violent Wahhabism that is the core of these attacks and Al Qaeda. The mainstream Islam / Muslims do not agree with what one sect has to say. It'd be like calling all Christians terrorists because of what the Irish Catholics / IRA did in the 90s. Wahhabist Islam regularly attack and kill Shia Muslims by the dozens. Even then, Wahhabism is a growing philosophy amongst Saudi princes, who have remained good allies to the US. Explicit denunciation of this particular philosophy would run counter to US Foreign Policy. Besides, its not like all Wahhabists are violent. Going back to the IRA example, some Catholics were violent in the 90s... but certainly not all of them.
- tim333 12y ago
  >However, conditions of extreme unemployment... Islam isn't the cause of terrorism I think underestimates the influence of the founders. Jesus mostly preached to turn the other cheek and didn't kill anyone. Here is a list of people killed by Muhammed http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Suppor... It goes on a bit and the sources vary in their authority but overall impression is pretty pro violence. Most of the 911 guys were well off Saudis who felt they were following the teachings. Obviously you can interpret the founders of a religion in different way and most Muslims are peaceful but it's hard to understand what's going on if you ignore that stuff.
  - btilly 12y ago
    That list is worth looking at in light of recent events. Not only because of how many are ordered killed, but because of how many are ordered killed because of poetry mocking Muhammed. Any muslim who kills a satirist who mocked islam has pretty good grounds to be saying that their actions are in line with what Mohammed would have done!
    - tim333 12y ago
      Yeah, I think you'll find most people who get called terrorists think they are on the side of good and in the case of Islamists, doing the work of Allah. Not that Christians and atheists are immune to killing people for what they think is a good cause. Indeed probably majority of the killings in the last century have been of that nature.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Jesus mostly preached to turn the other cheek and didn't kill anyone. And yet from the time it achieved the kind of power in any society from which to exert substantial influence well into the modern period, Christians were killing people -- in other countries, in their own countries, etc. -- in the name of Christ all the time. The Crusades (and not just the ones in the "Holy Land" and/or targeting Muslims) were a thing. The Inquisition was a thing. Europe's Wars of Religion were a thing. There is a reason the word "pogrom" exists. The modern Western concept of freedom of religion isn't a direct product of some religious parallel to the Ruby's community's maxim "Matz Is Nice And So We Are Nice", its a product of the exhaustion of Western European Christians after more than a millenium of killings -- not least of all of Western European Christians by Western European Christians -- in the name of Christ. The idea that Christianity is somehow inherently more peaceful than Islam requires ignoring pretty much the entirety of the history of Christianity.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- onezeno 12y ago
  Without a doubt extreme unemployment and poverty contributes to radical and criminal behavior. But saying that patriarch dominance and lack of democratic tradition leads to terrorism...where is this coming from? So by your logic, democratic countries are free of terrorism and non-democratic countries are riddled with it. Of course we can shoot all kinds of holes in that notion through counter-example. And blaming terrorism on patriarchy? Most societies in history, even traditional European society, were patriarchal. To say they cause terrorism (with zero elaboration) just waters down your otherwise insightful comment by exposing your strong Western liberal/feminist bias.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
theorique 12y ago
in my opinion it borders a form of racism of low expectations. Agreed, but sadly those expectations are met often enough, and dramatically enough (as in the cases you mentioned) that many people are not willing to take the risk.

by flexie 12y ago

briandear 12y ago

Exactly this. The folks in places such as the White House are very quick to condemn some silly anti-Islam YouTube video, yet when the Palestinians make suicide bomber anti-Jew Seasame Street clones, the White House says nothing about the potential for such productions to be "irresponsible." It's like Muslims are little retarded kids and we aren't allowed to make fun of because the power to control themselves is not expected. Of course, when Piss Christ was exhibited in New York, there were some minor protests (mainly over tax payer funding of the exhibit) but I don't recall southern baptist ministers preaching that the artist and all of the museum employees should be shot up with rifles. It's a fact that their are crazies in all religions, and plenty of atheist nut jobs as well, but the propensity to massacre a bunch of people because they're "offended" seems to be much higher among Islam. Which is a bit ironic, since my Muslim friends and families are among the warmest and most welcoming people I know. However, conditions of extreme unemployment, poverty and patriarch-dominance in countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc, combined with a lack of democratic tradition makes these places powerful inncubators for terror. Islam isn't the cause of terrorism, it's merely a vector.

Retric 12y ago
Islam and Christianity promote peace. But, pretending that everyone is ready to stand hand in hand and do a sing along is just ridiculous. Don't forget Islam and Christianity along with many other religions also actively promotes violence. In the west we tend to whitewash things, but for a less controversial example if you look at say Peter Pain or fairy tales there very different pre Disneyfication. PS: Remember when a faith says it's ok or even expected to kill {ex: witch} then all it takes is for someone to be convinced that X in on that list and people feel justified. Consider, many people have little to no problem with killing a mass murder.
PublicEnemy111 12y ago
I was in Syria before the war(~2006) and there was no patriarch-dominance or extreme unemployment in Aleppo or Damascus. These cities had religious freedom and many Syrians were Catholic. I was fortunate enough to live with locals in both cities for two weeks. The poverty there is not an apples-to-apples comparison to the poverty here in the US or many other parts of the world. There was some dissatisfaction with Al-Assad[1], but most Syrians supported him and continue to do so. This is not the first time extremist muslims have tried to overthrow him. I remember my hosts telling me he crushed a muslim rebellion in what I can only assume was the 80s or 90s [1] I believe this had to do with his greedy brother or cousin who taxed businesses for personal profit
- enupten 12y ago
  You must've realized by now that American foreign policy (& ergo media biases) is distinctly Saudi-centered. The current debacle with ISIS is likely the result of covert Saudi-CIA funding of "secular" rebels before things went bad (ala Afghanistan): http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-saudi-arabia-iraq-syria-bandar/373181/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isi... That's not to say I like Abbas, of course, but criticism in the US is always the classic manichean "good" vs "evil", which ends up doing more harm than good. The other case, being Iran -whose Muslims are far less radical than those in Saudi- is made to appear as some raving mad state (their Govt. is awful no doubt). Until the propaganda machine changes its mind, you'll keep seeing the violent philosophy of Wahabism spread like a cancer; and being politically correct doesn't particularly help.
  - dragontamer 12y ago
    People need to learn that it's the extremist violent Wahhabism that is the core of these attacks and Al Qaeda. The mainstream Islam / Muslims do not agree with what one sect has to say. It'd be like calling all Christians terrorists because of what the Irish Catholics / IRA did in the 90s. Wahhabist Islam regularly attack and kill Shia Muslims by the dozens. Even then, Wahhabism is a growing philosophy amongst Saudi princes, who have remained good allies to the US. Explicit denunciation of this particular philosophy would run counter to US Foreign Policy. Besides, its not like all Wahhabists are violent. Going back to the IRA example, some Catholics were violent in the 90s... but certainly not all of them.
tim333 12y ago
>However, conditions of extreme unemployment... Islam isn't the cause of terrorism I think underestimates the influence of the founders. Jesus mostly preached to turn the other cheek and didn't kill anyone. Here is a list of people killed by Muhammed http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Suppor... It goes on a bit and the sources vary in their authority but overall impression is pretty pro violence. Most of the 911 guys were well off Saudis who felt they were following the teachings. Obviously you can interpret the founders of a religion in different way and most Muslims are peaceful but it's hard to understand what's going on if you ignore that stuff.
- btilly 12y ago
  That list is worth looking at in light of recent events. Not only because of how many are ordered killed, but because of how many are ordered killed because of poetry mocking Muhammed. Any muslim who kills a satirist who mocked islam has pretty good grounds to be saying that their actions are in line with what Mohammed would have done!
  - tim333 12y ago
    Yeah, I think you'll find most people who get called terrorists think they are on the side of good and in the case of Islamists, doing the work of Allah. Not that Christians and atheists are immune to killing people for what they think is a good cause. Indeed probably majority of the killings in the last century have been of that nature.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Jesus mostly preached to turn the other cheek and didn't kill anyone. And yet from the time it achieved the kind of power in any society from which to exert substantial influence well into the modern period, Christians were killing people -- in other countries, in their own countries, etc. -- in the name of Christ all the time. The Crusades (and not just the ones in the "Holy Land" and/or targeting Muslims) were a thing. The Inquisition was a thing. Europe's Wars of Religion were a thing. There is a reason the word "pogrom" exists. The modern Western concept of freedom of religion isn't a direct product of some religious parallel to the Ruby's community's maxim "Matz Is Nice And So We Are Nice", its a product of the exhaustion of Western European Christians after more than a millenium of killings -- not least of all of Western European Christians by Western European Christians -- in the name of Christ. The idea that Christianity is somehow inherently more peaceful than Islam requires ignoring pretty much the entirety of the history of Christianity.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
onezeno 12y ago
Without a doubt extreme unemployment and poverty contributes to radical and criminal behavior. But saying that patriarch dominance and lack of democratic tradition leads to terrorism...where is this coming from? So by your logic, democratic countries are free of terrorism and non-democratic countries are riddled with it. Of course we can shoot all kinds of holes in that notion through counter-example. And blaming terrorism on patriarchy? Most societies in history, even traditional European society, were patriarchal. To say they cause terrorism (with zero elaboration) just waters down your otherwise insightful comment by exposing your strong Western liberal/feminist bias.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

theorique 12y ago

in my opinion it borders a form of racism of low expectations. Agreed, but sadly those expectations are met often enough, and dramatically enough (as in the cases you mentioned) that many people are not willing to take the risk.