Re: [chchskeptics] draw muhammad day
| From: | Isaac Freeman |
| Sent on: | Saturday, May 15, 2010 4:50 PM |
Hi Shaun. I'm not sure I can do full justice to all your points, but wanted to reply to a few.
On 15/05/2010, at 12:03 PM, Shaun Waugh wrote:
As a direct consequence of the sociopathic, misanthropy of those few deluded theists on 9/11 my freedom, and by extension every citizen of modern secular society's freedom has been irrevocably reduced in this way;
I do not think this was a _direct_ consequence. A bunch of brainwashed criminals committed a horrific crime. But they had no direct control over the response of governments. The terrorists could only hope that they took the bait, and it turned out they did.
Further, if every citizen has been irrevocably affected, how do you think it affects the freedom of Muslims? This is not to say the rest of haven't been affected - of course we have. But it's not correct to treat Muslims as an undifferentiated group. A tiny minority are to blame, and the overwhelming majority face restrictions on their freedom far worse than I as a non-Muslim pakeha ever will.
Where is the groundswell movement of moderate Muslims to oppose, deny and root out/drive out, expose, name and shame extremists from their fold?Where is their ongoing vocal denouncement of 9/11?Where do I hear the roar of the moderate Islamic crowd outraged at the grossly disproportionate overreaction to the innocuous, funny in a wry lighthearted way, cartoon above?
Where do you hear it? Pretty much anywhere Muslims talk to each other. The thing is that it doesn't make headlines in newspapers. Occasionally you see the tip of the iceberg in phrases like "reported to police by concerned members of the mosque" or "banned from speaking at all other mosques" or that sort of thing. It's never going to get reported effectively, because it's not as spectacular as a bomb going off, but it's constant.
Richard Dawkins said "People take offence when they can't take argument".
Obviously that's a pithy statement and not intended to be a full description of human behaviour, but I think it makes a dangerous assumption. While it may often be the case that people who can't argue resort to taking offense, I don't think it follows that everyone who takes offense must therefore be unable to argue. I don't think I personally take offense at much, but when I get irritated with people it's seldom because I feel unable to make my point. More often, it's because I feel people aren't listening or respecting my opinion.
Bearing in mind that the Danish cartoons arose out of the legitimate ongoing response, in the free press to the events of 9/11 and all that those events imply. The choice by Islamic true believers to take offence at these 12 cartoons, is nothing more than a thinly veiled, clear and present threat to freedom of speech.
I've no disagreement on this as far as the facts go. What I'm concerned about is the use of phrases like "Islamic true believers" to describe a screwed-up fringe minority without acknowledging that this is not the normal practice of Islam. I don't think this is just a matter of semantics, because it has practical effects in the real world. If we pretend all Muslims are terrorists, we make it much easier for the actual terrorists to brainwash and confuse the vulnerable. This is the only way terrorist groups can actually survive. They fail quickly when they're treated as the common criminals they are, instead of as the vanguard of a popular movement they want you to believe they are.
? Finally, to the Springbok tour, 1981.Prior to the tour I grappled with the issue of whether to follow my conscience and protest, or whether it was futile, whether 'keep politics out of sport' was an argument I was persuaded by...Ultimately I decided to protest and protest and protest.That decision divided my family and many friendships.I'm glad I made that decision.
I was too young to protest at the time, but thank you for doing so.
Isaac Freeman
Web Design & Development
[address removed] ++64 21 1511209 AIM: isaacfreem
