[lit-ideas] Re: Muhammed and the Giant Peach

Judy:
I'm not saying people should not (e.g.) tell Muslims
that they believe in freedom of speech

What good is the belief if it can't be practiced because someone threatens
your life, your embassy, etc.

Judy: One defends free speech by
defending it.
 
Sorry, I disagree.  One defends it by practicing it.

Judy:I trust you blame the City of Detroit more than you
blame the imam.

I blame them both.  Neither one of them likes or respects the first
amendment to the US Constitution.
And Detroit is a poverty stricken city which can't afford to pay people for
violating their rights.

Judy:but religion was not admitted
into politics. 

You are very fortunate.  My Congressional representative  campaigned on
Catholic values.  These include no birth control, no morning after pill
even for 25,000 per year rape victims and getting women back in the home. 
He subscribes to the belief that women are responsible for the loss of
moral values in the US
due to the invention of the birth control pill.  He won, 2:1.  So you see,
people here cannot be so calm about any religious issue, not just Muslim
fanatics.

Judy:I think you mean Jewish people -- and others -- don't
voice their outrage in the way that Muslims are doing
now. I hope that continues to be the case. 

No, I would be just as upset by anyone voicing their outrage the way
Muslims have reacted to this cartoon issue.  My reference was to the mild
reaction of non-Jews to these goings on in the Muslim world.  And the great
understanding for the suicide bombers.  That is until the intifada went
global.
Yes, I know.  Disapproval was expressed in responsible publications and no,
I did not want Westerners to get out on the street and burn buildings. 
But, just for an example, why weren't people demanding a stop to
Palestinian aid when they knew Arafat was one of the people behind it and
financing it?  And why was Hezbollah acceptable in the great country of
Canada until Jewish groups protested it?  

Judy:A group calling itself Action Against Anti-Semitism
marched into the Statesman's offices, demanding a
printed apology. One eventually followed. 

What good are apologies when they are demanded?

This morning a newspaper in the Ukraine reprinted the offending cartoon. 
Are they trying to bring on a clash of civilizations?  Or a clash a values?
Or are they insisting that in Europe, European values will prevail,
regardless of the consequences?

I stand with the article by Hitchens and the Globe and Mail posted here
previously.

Veronica

> [Original Message]
> From: Judith Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 2/5/2006 12:06:45 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Muhammed and the Giant Peach
>
>
> --- Veronica Caley <vcaley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Judy:Incidentally "pluralism" has many meanings but
> > presumably in this context it implies a certain
> > sensitivity to the possible feelings of others
> >  
> > Yes, this is true.  However, about two years ago, I
> > read that scholars of
> > any religion, including Muslim, must publish their
> > findings re the Koran
> > anonymously as they fear being murdered. 
> (etc.)
>
> I'm not saying people should not (e.g.) tell Muslims
> that they believe in freedom of speech.  *Muslims* are
> themselves telling Muslims that right now.  about 700
> Muslims have demonstrated here against the cartoons:
>
> 1.  our police are investigating those among them who
> "called for the massacre of those who insult Islam"
> 2.  Muslim organizations here have condemned them and
> called for calm.
>
> But continually publishing the cartoons and further
> cartoons (which are I am told fake and whose aim can
> only be inflammatory) and calling that a defence of
> free speech, seems to be both absurd and -- in this
> instance -- wrong.  One defends free speech by
> defending it.
>
>
> > A year or so ago the City of  Detroit prohibited a
> > performance by Eminem. 
> > He sued and won a couple of  hundred thousand
> > dollars for the city's
> > violation of his freedom of  expression.  The local
> > imam wrote a letter to
> > the editor of the Detroit  Free Press bemoaning that
> > the city can't censor
> > the obscene performance and  that it had to pay for
> > violating someone's
> > freedom of expression.
>
> I trust you blame the City of Detroit more than you
> blame the imam.
>
>
> > I  find this whole thing extremely frightening.  It
> > seems like our  freedoms
> > are being attacked from all quarters.  The wimpy
> > Bush  administration is
> > giving in to this at the same time as they are
> > spying on  us.
> > The Christian right is busily working on doing away
> > with birth control  and
> > women working.  The New York Times waits a year and
> > censors itself  before
> > revealing the internal spying.  
>
> OK I understand -- but it is not like that here, I'm
> writing from my perspective, in a country where till
> Charles Kennedy resigned, one major party leader of
> three was Roman Catholic, another is probably really a
> Roman Catholic (Blair), but religion was not admitted
> into politics.  (And the Lords and then the Commons
> bashed Blair's anti-terrorism and religious hate
> laws.)
>
> >The whole world is slipping into fundamentalism of
> >one kind or another. 
> >The victims of this are people of liberal religion
> >or no religion. 
>
> again not here and that probably explains some of my
> reaction (though I know US liberals who feel somewhat
> as I do)
>  
> >>>>>
>  And where is the outrage in the world about the
> virulent anti-Semitism in the Arab world and on Arab
> television.  I
> understand there is even one story line about cannibal
> rabbis consuming
> Muslim children.
> >>>>
>
> I think you mean Jewish people -- and others -- don't
> voice their  outrage in the way that Muslims are doing
> now.  I hope that continues to be the case.  Here's
> how a Jewish group here handled  an instance of
> anti-semitism:
>
> >>>>>>>>>
> In January 2002 the New Statesman published a front
> page displaying a shimmering golden Star of David
> impaling a union flag, with the words "A kosher
> conspiracy?" The cover was widely and rightly
> condemned as anti-semitic. It's not difficult to see
> why. It played into vile stereotypes of money-grabbing
> Jewish cabals out to undermine the country they live
> in. Some put it down to a lapse of editorial judgment.
> But many saw it not as an aberration but part of a
> trend - one more broadside in an attack on Jews from
> the liberal left.
>
> A group calling itself Action Against Anti-Semitism
> marched into the Statesman's offices, demanding a
> printed apology. One eventually followed. The then
> editor, Peter Wilby, later confessed that he had not
> appreciated "the historic sensitivities" of Britain's
> Jews. I do not remember talk of a clash of
> civilisations in which Jewish values were inconsistent
> with the western traditions of freedom of speech or
> democracy. Nor do I recall editors across Europe
> rushing to reprint the cover in solidarity.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1701986,00.html
>
>
>
> Judy Evans, Cardiff
>
>
>               
> ___________________________________________________________ 
> Yahoo! Photos ? NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a
photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html



------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: