---

Den britisk-amerikanske spaltisten Andrew Sullivan's kommentar i
magasinet Time er verdt å lese. Her er et lite utdrag:



http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156609-1,00.html

Muslim leaders say the cartoons are not just offensive. They're
blasphemy - the mother of all offenses. That's because Islam forbids
any visual depiction of the Prophet, even benign ones. Should
non-Muslims respect this taboo? I see no reason why. You can respect a
religion without honoring its taboos. I eat pork, and I'm not an
anti-Semite. As a Catholic, I don't expect atheists to genuflect
before an altar. If violating a taboo is necessary to illustrate a
political point, then the call is an easy one. Freedom means learning
to deal with being offended.

And there is, of course, the other blasphemy. It occurred on Sept. 11,
2001, when fanatics murdered thousands of innocents in the name of
Islam. Surely, nothing could be more blasphemous. So where were the
Muslim boycotts of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan after that horrifying
event? Since 9/11 mosques have been bombed in Iraq by Islamic
terrorists. Where was the rioting condemning attacks on the holiest of
shrines? These double standards reveal something quite clear: this
call for "sensitivity" is primarily a cover for intolerance of others
and intimidation of free people.

Yes, there's no reason to offend people of any faith arbitrarily. We
owe all faiths respect. But the Danish cartoons were not arbitrarily
offensive. They were designed to reveal Islamic intolerance - and they
have now done so, in abundance. The West's principles are clear
enough. Tolerance? Yes. Faith? Absolutely. Freedom of speech?
Nonnegotiable.

--
Erik

Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

"Erik J. Helgesen" <gamle_erik@hell.no> wrote in message
news:43eb6e00.17420906@news.online.no...
> Den britisk-amerikanske spaltisten Andrew Sullivan's kommentar i
> magasinet Time er verdt å lese. Her er et lite utdrag:

I followed-up to flamy dutch nl.politiek . I usually lurk here.

> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156609-1,00.html

> Muslim leaders say the cartoons are not just offensive. They're
> blasphemy - the mother of all offenses.

In order to blaspheme you need to offend god. I never saw this Allah guy
around any of the cartoons.

That's because Islam forbids
> any visual depiction of the Prophet, even benign ones.

Nowhere to be found in the koran. This is a cultural matter. What does "the
prophet" look like?

Should
> non-Muslims respect this taboo? I see no reason why. You can respect a
> religion without honoring its taboos.

You can not hide behind your religion or freedom of the press. Sooner or
later either will come to a discussion so forget about hiding.

I eat pork, and I'm not an
> anti-Semite. As a Catholic, I don't expect atheists to genuflect
> before an altar. If violating a taboo is necessary to illustrate a
> political point, then the call is an easy one. Freedom means learning
> to deal with being offended.

It is only by accepting that you cannot be offended that you will not be
offended. It is a legal position that you can be offended so you can sue
another person in order to bully the same. That the state and institutions
have accepted that they can be offended is a mere oppressive tool.

> And there is, of course, the other blasphemy. It occurred on Sept. 11,
> 2001, when fanatics murdered thousands of innocents in the name of
> Islam. Surely, nothing could be more blasphemous. So where were the
> Muslim boycotts of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan after that horrifying
> event? Since 9/11 mosques have been bombed in Iraq by Islamic
> terrorists. Where was the rioting condemning attacks on the holiest of
> shrines? These double standards reveal something quite clear: this
> call for "sensitivity" is primarily a cover for intolerance of others
> and intimidation of free people.
>
> Yes, there's no reason to offend people of any faith arbitrarily.

As said its a silly proposition demonstrating your willingness to sue and
bully .

We
> owe all faiths respect.

What are you hiding?

But the Danish cartoons were not arbitrarily
> offensive. They were designed to reveal Islamic intolerance - and they
> have now done so, in abundance.

If the radical muslims would stop terrorizing the planet there would be
nothing left to draw.

The West's principles are clear
> enough. Tolerance? Yes. Faith? Absolutely. Freedom of speech?
> Nonnegotiable.

All these are hiding places. All are to be discussed. This is only possible
in a transparant setting where there is unqualified freedom.

A.

---

Anneke.A wrote:
>
> "Erik J. Helgesen" <gamle_erik@hell.no> wrote in message

>> Muslim leaders say the cartoons are not just offensive. They're
>> blasphemy - the mother of all offenses.
>
> In order to blaspheme you need to offend god. I never saw this
> Allah guy around any of the cartoons.

So what, Anneke? Muslim leader say it is blasphemy. Why would we
believe you? (And why would we care?)

>> Yes, there's no reason to offend people of any faith arbitrarily.
>
> As said its a silly proposition demonstrating your willingness to
> sue and bully .

What exactly was silly, Anneke? (Obviously you're the expert!)

>> But the Danish cartoons were not arbitrarily
>> offensive. They were designed to reveal Islamic intolerance - and
>> they have now done so, in abundance.
>
> If the radical muslims would stop terrorizing the planet there would
> be nothing left to draw.

But Anneke, If we just murder all those Moslims we can still draw
cartoons of you drinking sherry, can't we?

>> The West's principles are clear
>> enough. Tolerance? Yes. Faith? Absolutely. Freedom of speech?
>> Nonnegotiable.
>
> All these are hiding places.

Is that another word for lies?

> .. All are to be discussed. This is only possible
> in a transparant setting where there is unqualified freedom.

Freedom, yes! But why would we need faith and tolerance?

(J)

"Freedom is the only thing..."

---

"Erik J. Helgesen" <gamle_erik@hell.no> skrev i melding
news:43eb6e00.17420906@news.online.no...
> Den britisk-amerikanske spaltisten Andrew Sullivan's kommentar i
> magasinet Time er verdt å lese. Her er et lite utdrag:
>
>
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156609-1,00.html
>
> Muslim leaders say the cartoons are not just offensive. They're
> blasphemy - the mother of all offenses. That's because Islam forbids
> any visual depiction of the Prophet, even benign ones. Should
> non-Muslims respect this taboo? I see no reason why. You can respect a
> religion without honoring its taboos. I eat pork, and I'm not an
> anti-Semite. As a Catholic, I don't expect atheists to genuflect
> before an altar. If violating a taboo is necessary to illustrate a
> political point, then the call is an easy one. Freedom means learning
> to deal with being offended.
>
> And there is, of course, the other blasphemy. It occurred on Sept. 11,
> 2001, when fanatics murdered thousands of innocents in the name of
> Islam. Surely, nothing could be more blasphemous. So where were the
> Muslim boycotts of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan after that horrifying
> event? Since 9/11 mosques have been bombed in Iraq by Islamic
> terrorists. Where was the rioting condemning attacks on the holiest of
> shrines? These double standards reveal something quite clear: this
> call for "sensitivity" is primarily a cover for intolerance of others
> and intimidation of free people.
>
> Yes, there's no reason to offend people of any faith arbitrarily. We
> owe all faiths respect. But the Danish cartoons were not arbitrarily
> offensive. They were designed to reveal Islamic intolerance - and they
> have now done so, in abundance. The West's principles are clear
> enough. Tolerance? Yes. Faith? Absolutely. Freedom of speech?
> Nonnegotiable.


Absolutt riktig.
Muslimene må akseptere at det finnes flere religioner
og at forutsetningen for fredelig sameksistens er at religionene innbyrdes
respekterer hverandres utøvere, uten nødvendigvis å akseptere andre
religioners
dogmer.

Satire og karikatur er, ogs skal være, tillatt i et demokratisk samfunn
med ytringsfrihet.

Blasfemi er straffbart i den grad det enkelte samfunn gjør det straffbart,
og ikke en tøddel mer.

Det skal ikke være afghansk eller syrisk Taliban som dikterer
arbeidsbetingelsene for
skandinaviske avistegnere.


--
BjarteR

---

Erik J. Helgesen wrote:
> Den britisk-amerikanske spaltisten Andrew Sullivan's kommentar i
> magasinet Time er verdt å lese. Her er et lite utdrag:
>
>
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156609-1,00.html
>
> Muslim leaders say the cartoons are not just offensive. They're
> blasphemy - the mother of all offenses. That's because Islam forbids
> any visual depiction of the Prophet, even benign ones. Should
> non-Muslims respect this taboo? I see no reason why. You can respect a
> religion without honoring its taboos. I eat pork, and I'm not an
> anti-Semite. As a Catholic, I don't expect atheists to genuflect
> before an altar. If violating a taboo is necessary to illustrate a
> political point, then the call is an easy one. Freedom means learning
> to deal with being offended.
>
> And there is, of course, the other blasphemy. It occurred on Sept. 11,
> 2001, when fanatics murdered thousands of innocents in the name of
> Islam. Surely, nothing could be more blasphemous. So where were the
> Muslim boycotts of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan after that horrifying
> event? Since 9/11 mosques have been bombed in Iraq by Islamic
> terrorists. Where was the rioting condemning attacks on the holiest of
> shrines? These double standards reveal something quite clear: this
> call for "sensitivity" is primarily a cover for intolerance of others
> and intimidation of free people.
>
> Yes, there's no reason to offend people of any faith arbitrarily. We
> owe all faiths respect. But the Danish cartoons were not arbitrarily
> offensive. They were designed to reveal Islamic intolerance - and they
> have now done so, in abundance. The West's principles are clear
> enough. Tolerance? Yes. Faith? Absolutely. Freedom of speech?
> Nonnegotiable.

De danske karikaturtegningene avslørte og fornærmet kanskje terroristene
blant såkalte muslimer? Det er kanskje derfor hysteriet tok sånn overhånd?
Jeg kan ikke si at jeg synes at Muhammed har blitt fornærmet i det hele
tatt, men nå har jeg jo ikke sett noen av tegningene, bare sett en
beskrevet.

--
Terje Henriksen
Kirkenes

---

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:47:18 GMT, gamle_erik@hell.no (Erik J.
Helgesen) wrote:

>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156609-1,00.html
>
>Yes, there's no reason to offend people of any faith arbitrarily. We
>owe all faiths respect. But the Danish cartoons were not arbitrarily
>offensive. They were designed to reveal Islamic intolerance - and they
>have now done so, in abundance. The West's principles are clear
>enough. Tolerance? Yes. Faith? Absolutely. Freedom of speech?
>Nonnegotiable.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=a8hEmi2ja5cg&refer=europe


Those responsible for spreading misinformation in the Middle East
should be charged with treason, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a member of the
Liberal Democratic Party in the Netherlands, told journalists in
Berlin yesterday, TV2 reported. News media were obliged to print the
Muhammad cartoons to defend freedom of speech, said Hirsi Ali, who
scripted a film criticizing Islam by Theo van Gogh, the Dutch
filmmaker murdered by a Muslim extremist in 2004.

"It was their duty as journalists to publish the cartoons of the
prophet Muhammad,'' TV2 quoted Hirsi Ali as saying on its Web site.

"To those newspapers and television stations who lacked the courage to
show the caricatures: shame on you,'' Hirsi Ali said, according to
TV2.

--
Erik

Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:47:18 GMT, gamle_erik@hell.no (Erik J.
Helgesen) wrote:

>Den britisk-amerikanske spaltisten Andrew Sullivan's kommentar i
>magasinet Time er verdt å lese. Her er et lite utdrag:
>
>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156609-1,00.html
>
>Yes, there's no reason to offend people of any faith arbitrarily. We
>owe all faiths respect. But the Danish cartoons were not arbitrarily
>offensive. They were designed to reveal Islamic intolerance - and they
>have now done so, in abundance. The West's principles are clear
>enough. Tolerance? Yes. Faith? Absolutely. Freedom of speech?
>Nonnegotiable.


Den indisk-pakistansk-amerikanske forfatteren Ibn Warraq har en
interessant kommentar som er verdt å lese. Her er et lite utdrag:


http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,398853,00.html

On the world stage, should we really apologize for Dante, Shakespeare,
and Goethe? Mozart, Beethoven and Bach? Rembrandt, Vermeer, Van Gogh,
Breughel, Ter Borch? Galileo, Huygens, Copernicus, Newton and Darwin?
Penicillin and computers? The Olympic Games and Football? Human rights
and parliamentary democracy?

The west is the source of the liberating ideas of individual liberty,
political democracy, the rule of law, human rights and cultural
freedom. It is the west that has raised the status of women, fought
against slavery, defended freedom of enquiry, expression and
conscience.

No, the west needs no lectures on the superior virtue of societies who
keep their women in subjection, cut off their clitorises, stone them
to death for alleged adultery, throw acid on their faces, or deny the
human rights of those considered to belong to lower castes.


--
Erik

Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.