See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html

Well worth reading in full, here are some passages I found
interesting:

* ``We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family
and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The
cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity,
Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in
Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the
Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not
strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding,
Muslims.''

* ``One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban --
has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is
saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a
terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the
religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of
the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name.
The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the
orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests
that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent
characteristic of the prophet.''

* ``Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly
didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I
show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as
I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer
demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public
domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And
that is incompatible with a secular democracy.''

* ``As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive
about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular
trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate
as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human
rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir
Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak.
The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some
Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.''

* ``But tragic demonstrations throughout the Middle East and Asia were
not what we anticipated, much less desired. Moreover, the newspaper
has received 104 registered threats, 10 people have been arrested,
cartoonists have been forced into hiding because of threats against
their lives and Jyllands-Posten's headquarters have been evacuated
several times due to bomb threats. This is hardly a climate for easing
self-censorship.''

James

--
James Hammerton, http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
Contributor to Magna Carta Plus: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
Magna Carta Plus News weblog: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/index.php

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:38:58 +0000, James Hammerton

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>See:
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html
>
>Well worth reading in full, here are some passages I found
>interesting:
>
>* ``We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family
>and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The
>cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity,
>Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions.

Perhaps Mr Rose might have thought fit to provide some example
cartoons of his where he has satirised these other religions.

>And by treating Muslims in
>Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the
>Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not
>strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding,
>Muslims.''

Amazing spin!

>* ``One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban --
>has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is
>saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a
>terrorist.

Broadly speaking, that's certainly the impression it gave.

>I read it differently:

Naturally. But only after the even I note.

>Some individuals have taken the
>religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of
>the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name.

Quite. So why produce a cartoon which implies that all Moslems are
terrorists by depicting their prophet as one?  Why not list those who
have committed acts of terror in the name of Islam if the intention
was only to depict a few as terrorists?

>The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the
>orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests
>that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent
>characteristic of the prophet.''

More amazing spin!

>* ``Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly
>didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I
>show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as
>I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer
>demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public
>domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And
>that is incompatible with a secular democracy.''

That's a subjective opinion wrapped in more amazing spin.
If I refrain from depicting Mo as a terrorist, I do not see it as
submitting to the demands of Islam, simly showing respect for other
peoples' beliefs without any harm to myself.

>* ``As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive
>about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular
>trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate
>as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human
>rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir
>Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak.
>The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some
>Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.''

More amazing spin.

>* ``But tragic demonstrations throughout the Middle East and Asia were
>not what we anticipated, much less desired.

So he says. What did he expect?

>Moreover, the newspaper
>has received 104 registered threats, 10 people have been arrested,
>cartoonists have been forced into hiding because of threats against
>their lives and Jyllands-Posten's headquarters have been evacuated
>several times due to bomb threats. This is hardly a climate for easing
>self-censorship.''

Such threats are unacceptable but Rose can hardly play the white man
can he?

Sorry James but this attempt by our Jewish friend Fleming Rose to
extricate himself from a mess of his own making has all the hallmarks
of a pile of pants to me.

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

hummingbird < ZYLYDWINUSED@spammotel.com > hypisteli näppistään
nyyssien yhteydessä seuraavasti:
> Naturally. But only after the even I note.
>
>> Some individuals have taken the
>> religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of
>> the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad
>> name.
>
> Quite. So why produce a cartoon which implies that all Moslems are
> terrorists by depicting their prophet as one?  Why not list those who
> have committed acts of terror in the name of Islam if the intention
> was only to depict a few as terrorists?
>

Umm, because he was, in every sense of the goddamn word? Well, he didn't 
have access to explosives - Greek Fire was copyrighted.

>> The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the
>> orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests
>> that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent
>> characteristic of the prophet.''
>
> More amazing spin!

Retard!

>
>> * ``Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly
>> didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque,
>> I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just
>> as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer
>> demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public
>> domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And
>> that is incompatible with a secular democracy.''
>
> That's a subjective opinion wrapped in more amazing spin.
> If I refrain from depicting Mo as a terrorist, I do not see it as
> submitting to the demands of Islam, simly showing respect for other
> peoples' beliefs without any harm to myself.

Fuck other people's beliefs.

> Sorry James but this attempt by our Jewish friend Fleming Rose to
> extricate himself from a mess of his own making has all the hallmarks
> of a pile of pants to me.

It's all right, you anti-semitist little cunt.

hummingbird wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:38:58 +0000, James Hammerton
> 
>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
> >See:
> >
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html
> >
> >Well worth reading in full, here are some passages I found
> >interesting:
> >
> >* ``We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family
> >and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The
> >cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity,
> >Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions.
>
> Perhaps Mr Rose might have thought fit to provide some example
> cartoons of his where he has satirised these other religions.
>
> >And by treating Muslims in
> >Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the
> >Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not
> >strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding,
> >Muslims.''
>
> Amazing spin!
>
> >* ``One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban --
> >has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is
> >saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a
> >terrorist.
>
> Broadly speaking, that's certainly the impression it gave.
>
> >I read it differently:
>
> Naturally. But only after the even I note.
>
> >Some individuals have taken the
> >religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of
> >the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name.
>
> Quite. So why produce a cartoon which implies that all Moslems are
> terrorists by depicting their prophet as one?

Since Mohammed was a terrorist, why not depict him as one?

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 21:41:57 +0000, hummingbird
 wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:38:58 +0000, James Hammerton
>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>See:
>>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html
>>
>>Well worth reading in full, here are some passages I found
>>interesting:
>>
>>* ``We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family
>>and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The
>>cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity,
>>Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions.
>
>Perhaps Mr Rose might have thought fit to provide some example
>cartoons of his where he has satirised these other religions.

He did provide examples of where the paper satirised other religions,
though not in the bits I quoted -- clearly you didn't bother to read
the article. For your information, he wrote:

``In fact, the same cartoonist who drew the image of Muhammed with a
bomb in his turban drew a cartoon with Jesus on the cross having
dollar notes in his eyes and another with the star of David attached
to a bomb fuse. There were, however, no embassy burnings or death
threats when we published those.''

>>And by treating Muslims in
>>Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the
>>Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not
>>strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding,
>>Muslims.''
>
>Amazing spin!

What exactly do you say is wrong with this statement?

>>* ``One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban --
>>has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is
>>saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a
>>terrorist.
>
>Broadly speaking, that's certainly the impression it gave.

But the cartoon is open to interpretation...

>>I read it differently:
>
>Naturally. But only after the even I note.

What do you mean "only after the event". Are you saying he interpreted
it differently at some point?

>>Some individuals have taken the
>>religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of
>>the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name.
>
>Quite. So why produce a cartoon which implies that all Moslems are
>terrorists by depicting their prophet as one? 

The cartoon implies no such thing.

> Why not list those who
>have committed acts of terror in the name of Islam if the intention
>was only to depict a few as terrorists?

You'd have to ask the illustrator who produced the cartoon. But see
also below...

>>The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the
>>orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests
>>that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent
>>characteristic of the prophet.''
>
>More amazing spin!

What's your problem with the above statements?

>>* ``Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly
>>didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I
>>show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as
>>I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer
>>demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public
>>domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And
>>that is incompatible with a secular democracy.''
>
>That's a subjective opinion wrapped in more amazing spin.

Nope. It's quite clear from the logic of the demands of some Muslims
that they are trying to get us to obey a tenet of their religion.

>If I refrain from depicting Mo as a terrorist, 

They're demanding we refrain from depicting Mo at all.

> I do not see it as
>submitting to the demands of Islam, simly showing respect for other
>peoples' beliefs without any harm to myself.

If they demand that you don't drink alcohol because it insults them
you can show your respect for them without harm to yourself by not
drinking alcohol...

>>* ``As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive
>>about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular
>>trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate
>>as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human
>>rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir
>>Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak.
>>The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some
>>Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.''
>
>More amazing spin.

What precisely is wrong with this comparison? ISTM quite appropriate.

>>* ``But tragic demonstrations throughout the Middle East and Asia were
>>not what we anticipated, much less desired.
>
>So he says. What did he expect?

I don't know what he actually expected. But, given that it took
several months (during which they were published in Egypt without any
fuss) and a tour of the middle east by some Danish Muslims who thought
it fine and dandy to include some images that had nothing to do with
the original cartoons before the trouble erupted, ISTM the cartoons
are a pretext for the trouble, not the cause.

James

--
James Hammerton, http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
Contributor to Magna Carta Plus: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
Magna Carta Plus News weblog: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/index.php

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:57:31 +0000, James Hammerton

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 21:41:57 +0000, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:38:58 +0000, James Hammerton
>>
>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>>>See:
>>>
>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html
>>>
>>>Well worth reading in full, here are some passages I found
>>>interesting:
>>>
>>>* ``We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family
>>>and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The
>>>cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity,
>>>Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions.
>>
>>Perhaps Mr Rose might have thought fit to provide some example
>>cartoons of his where he has satirised these other religions.
>
>He did provide examples of where the paper satirised other religions,
>though not in the bits I quoted 

Ah! so you posted selected extracts which did not give a balanced view
of his article. Always a risky practice ;-) But you're right, I should
have read the full article.

>-- clearly you didn't bother to read
>the article. For your information, he wrote:

Quite right.

>``In fact, the same cartoonist who drew the image of Muhammed with a
>bomb in his turban drew a cartoon with Jesus on the cross having
>dollar notes in his eyes and another with the star of David attached
>to a bomb fuse. There were, however, no embassy burnings or death
>threats when we published those.''
>
>>>And by treating Muslims in
>>>Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the
>>>Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not
>>>strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding,
>>>Muslims.''
>>
>>Amazing spin!
>
>What exactly do you say is wrong with this statement?

That should be obvious. It's eg: on a par with Blair saying that he's
imposing CCAs, RIPAs and ID Cards etc to expand our freedoms. It 
might be *seen by him that way*, but most sane people would take it
with a pinch of salt, even two.  Hence my previous comment.

>>>* ``One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban --
>>>has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is
>>>saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a
>>>terrorist.
>>
>>Broadly speaking, that's certainly the impression it gave.
>
>But the cartoon is open to interpretation...

Everything in life is open to interpretation.

I said "broadly speaking" - meaning that a large proportion saw it
that way.  Doubtless there are some who didn't; there always are.

>>>I read it differently:
>>
>>Naturally. But only after the even I note.
>
>What do you mean "only after the event". Are you saying he interpreted
>it differently at some point?

I'm saying that his interpretation of how he claims to have seen it
has only now been prepared - months after the event and much furore.
He's had plenty of time to think about his response to the criticisms.
His explanation would be more credible to me if he had come out with
it at the time and spontaneously.

>>>Some individuals have taken the
>>>religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of
>>>the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name.
>>
>>Quite. So why produce a cartoon which implies that all Moslems are
>>terrorists by depicting their prophet as one? 
>
>The cartoon implies no such thing.

In your opinion. Many many Moslems see it differently. I also see it
differently - in fact I see it in the same way as they do, and IMV the
way it was intended.

>> Why not list those who
>>have committed acts of terror in the name of Islam if the intention
>>was only to depict a few as terrorists?
>
>You'd have to ask the illustrator who produced the cartoon. But see
>also below...
>
>>>The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the
>>>orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests
>>>that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent
>>>characteristic of the prophet.''
>>
>>More amazing spin!
>
>What's your problem with the above statements?

See above. IMV the intention was to depict Mo as the prophet (leader)
of a religion which is overflowing with suicide bombers. That's how it
was taken and how it was intended IMV. So his comments amount to utter
crap IMHO. Doubtless there are those who believe the Aladdin and
orange story.

>>>* ``Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly
>>>didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I
>>>show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as
>>>I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer
>>>demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public
>>>domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And
>>>that is incompatible with a secular democracy.''
>>
>>That's a subjective opinion wrapped in more amazing spin.
>
>Nope. It's quite clear from the logic of the demands of some Muslims
>that they are trying to get us to obey a tenet of their religion.

What demands are they then?

>>If I refrain from depicting Mo as a terrorist, 
>
>They're demanding we refrain from depicting Mo at all.

Because it's taboo in Islam and they want others to respect it.

If Christians had a taboo on depicting Jesus are you suggesting that
Christians wouldn't be up in arms about Moslems depicting him in
cartoons as a homesexual having sex with another man or summat?
Don't we have a blasphemy law? Didn't Mary Whitehouse use it?

>> I do not see it as
>>submitting to the demands of Islam, simly showing respect for other
>>peoples' beliefs without any harm to myself.
>
>If they demand that you don't drink alcohol because it insults them
>you can show your respect for them without harm to yourself by not
>drinking alcohol...

We've been here before.
I'm not sure you can easily differentiate between acts which do not
affect you (like showing respect for other peoples beliefs) and those
which do (like having a drink which may be part of your daily ritual).
Some of this is subjective but the overall picture is one of common
courtesy.

>>>* ``As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive
>>>about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular
>>>trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate
>>>as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human
>>>rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir
>>>Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak.
>>>The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some
>>>Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.''
>>
>>More amazing spin.
>
>What precisely is wrong with this comparison? ISTM quite appropriate.

I find it hard to link what happened in the Soviet Union with this
event. One was official State policy, the other is by a few Moslems.

>>>* ``But tragic demonstrations throughout the Middle East and Asia were
>>>not what we anticipated, much less desired.
>>
>>So he says. What did he expect?
>
>I don't know what he actually expected. But, given that it took
>several months (during which they were published in Egypt without any
>fuss)

There was some small fuss afaik.

>and a tour of the middle east by some Danish Muslims who thought
>it fine and dandy to include some images that had nothing to do with
>the original cartoons before the trouble erupted, ISTM the cartoons
>are a pretext for the trouble, not the cause.

I see the events and timing of them as a deliberate attempt by some
militant Moslems to stir up trouble for their own ends but one cannot
ignore that it often takes time for things to spread around the world.

James, at the end of the day we will all draw our own conclusions as
to whether Mr Rose intended the cartoons in the way they have been
interpreted by Moslems or whether they were intended innocently.

For me to believe the latter, I'd have to assume that he's a very dumb
or very naive person and doesn't have a clue about Moslems but I find
that difficult to accept, given his position. Even then I'd still have
to dismiss the fact that he's Jewish and is alleged to have contacts
with a number of high ranking zionist neo-cons in Washington.
I notice he's now fled to the US. What does that tell you?

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:52:14 +0200, "halle" 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>hummingbird < ZYLYDWINUSED@spammotel.com > hypisteli näppistään
>nyyssien yhteydessä seuraavasti:
>> Naturally. But only after the even I note.
>>
>>> Some individuals have taken the
>>> religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of
>>> the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad
>>> name.
>>
>> Quite. So why produce a cartoon which implies that all Moslems are
>> terrorists by depicting their prophet as one?  Why not list those who
>> have committed acts of terror in the name of Islam if the intention
>> was only to depict a few as terrorists?
>>
>
>Umm, because he was, in every sense of the goddamn word? Well, he didn't 
>have access to explosives - Greek Fire was copyrighted.
>
>>> The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the
>>> orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests
>>> that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent
>>> characteristic of the prophet.''
>>
>> More amazing spin!
>
>Retard!
>
>>
>>> * ``Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly
>>> didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque,
>>> I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just
>>> as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer
>>> demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public
>>> domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And
>>> that is incompatible with a secular democracy.''
>>
>> That's a subjective opinion wrapped in more amazing spin.
>> If I refrain from depicting Mo as a terrorist, I do not see it as
>> submitting to the demands of Islam, simly showing respect for other
>> peoples' beliefs without any harm to myself.
>
>Fuck other people's beliefs.
>
>> Sorry James but this attempt by our Jewish friend Fleming Rose to
>> extricate himself from a mess of his own making has all the hallmarks
>> of a pile of pants to me.
>
>It's all right, you anti-semitist little cunt. 

Rotfl. You don't even know what anti-semitism is.
When did you have your only brain cell removed dork?

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

On 18 Feb 2006 14:57:24 -0800, hwake@freeispshares.co.uk
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>hummingbird wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:38:58 +0000, James Hammerton
>> 
>>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>> >See:
>> >
>> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html
>> >
>> >Well worth reading in full, here are some passages I found
>> >interesting:
>> >
>> >* ``We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family
>> >and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The
>> >cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity,
>> >Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions.
>>
>> Perhaps Mr Rose might have thought fit to provide some example
>> cartoons of his where he has satirised these other religions.
>>
>> >And by treating Muslims in
>> >Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the
>> >Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not
>> >strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding,
>> >Muslims.''
>>
>> Amazing spin!
>>
>> >* ``One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban --
>> >has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is
>> >saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a
>> >terrorist.
>>
>> Broadly speaking, that's certainly the impression it gave.
>>
>> >I read it differently:
>>
>> Naturally. But only after the even I note.
>>
>> >Some individuals have taken the
>> >religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of
>> >the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name.
>>
>> Quite. So why produce a cartoon which implies that all Moslems are
>> terrorists by depicting their prophet as one?
>
>Since Mohammed was a terrorist, why not depict him as one?

Doubtless you have reams of evidence to support this.

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

hummingbird < ZYLYDWINUSED@spammotel.com > hypisteli näppistään
nyyssien yhteydessä seuraavasti:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:52:14 +0200, "halle" 
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>> hummingbird < ZYLYDWINUSED@spammotel.com > hypisteli näppistään
>> nyyssien yhteydessä seuraavasti:
>>> Naturally. But only after the even I note.
>>>
>>>> Some individuals have taken the
>>>> religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name
>>>> of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad
>>>> name.
>>>
>>> Quite. So why produce a cartoon which implies that all Moslems are
>>> terrorists by depicting their prophet as one?  Why not list those
>>> who have committed acts of terror in the name of Islam if the
>>> intention was only to depict a few as terrorists?
>>>
>>
>> Umm, because he was, in every sense of the goddamn word? Well, he
>> didn't have access to explosives - Greek Fire was copyrighted.
>>
>>>> The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the
>>>> orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This
>>>> suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an
>>>> inherent characteristic of the prophet.''
>>>
>>> More amazing spin!
>>
>> Retard!
>>
>>>
>>>> * ``Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It
>>>> certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I
>>>> visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow
>>>> the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy
>>>> place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe
>>>> his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect,
>>>> but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular
>>>> democracy.''
>>>
>>> That's a subjective opinion wrapped in more amazing spin.
>>> If I refrain from depicting Mo as a terrorist, I do not see it as
>>> submitting to the demands of Islam, simly showing respect for other
>>> peoples' beliefs without any harm to myself.
>>
>> Fuck other people's beliefs.
>>
>>> Sorry James but this attempt by our Jewish friend Fleming Rose to
>>> extricate himself from a mess of his own making has all the
>>> hallmarks of a pile of pants to me.
>>
>> It's all right, you anti-semitist little cunt.
>
> Rotfl. You don't even know what anti-semitism is.
> When did you have your only brain cell removed dork?

You aren't fooling anyone you nazi shite.

"hummingbird"  wrote in message 
news:bchhv1t7go8o1iogptkq323qn75mh2lfb4@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:52:14 +0200, "halle" 
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>hummingbird < ZYLYDWINUSED@spammotel.com > hypisteli näppistään
>>nyyssien yhteydessä seuraavasti:
>>> Naturally. But only after the even I note.
>>>
>>>> Some individuals have taken the
>>>> religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of
>>>> the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad
>>>> name.
>>>
>>> Quite. So why produce a cartoon which implies that all Moslems are
>>> terrorists by depicting their prophet as one?  Why not list those who
>>> have committed acts of terror in the name of Islam if the intention
>>> was only to depict a few as terrorists?
>>>
>>
>>Umm, because he was, in every sense of the goddamn word? Well, he didn't
>>have access to explosives - Greek Fire was copyrighted.
>>
>>>> The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the
>>>> orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests
>>>> that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent
>>>> characteristic of the prophet.''
>>>
>>> More amazing spin!
>>
>>Retard!
>>
>>>
>>>> * ``Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly
>>>> didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque,
>>>> I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just
>>>> as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer
>>>> demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public
>>>> domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And
>>>> that is incompatible with a secular democracy.''
>>>
>>> That's a subjective opinion wrapped in more amazing spin.
>>> If I refrain from depicting Mo as a terrorist, I do not see it as
>>> submitting to the demands of Islam, simly showing respect for other
>>> peoples' beliefs without any harm to myself.
>>
>>Fuck other people's beliefs.
>>
>>> Sorry James but this attempt by our Jewish friend Fleming Rose to
>>> extricate himself from a mess of his own making has all the hallmarks
>>> of a pile of pants to me.
>>
>>It's all right, you anti-semitist little cunt.
>
> Rotfl. You don't even know what anti-semitism is.
> When did you have your only brain cell removed dork?

Undoubtedly, I'd say  ;)

hummingbird wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2006 14:57:24 -0800, hwake@freeispshares.co.uk
>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
> >hummingbird wrote:
> >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:38:58 +0000, James Hammerton
> >> 
> >>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
> >>
> >> >See:
> >> >
> >> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html
> >> >
> >> >Well worth reading in full, here are some passages I found
> >> >interesting:
> >> >
> >> >* ``We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family
> >> >and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The
> >> >cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity,
> >> >Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions.
> >>
> >> Perhaps Mr Rose might have thought fit to provide some example
> >> cartoons of his where he has satirised these other religions.
> >>
> >> >And by treating Muslims in
> >> >Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the
> >> >Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not
> >> >strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding,
> >> >Muslims.''
> >>
> >> Amazing spin!
> >>
> >> >* ``One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban --
> >> >has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is
> >> >saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a
> >> >terrorist.
> >>
> >> Broadly speaking, that's certainly the impression it gave.
> >>
> >> >I read it differently:
> >>
> >> Naturally. But only after the even I note.
> >>
> >> >Some individuals have taken the
> >> >religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of
> >> >the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name.
> >>
> >> Quite. So why produce a cartoon which implies that all Moslems are
> >> terrorists by depicting their prophet as one?
> >
> >Since Mohammed was a terrorist, why not depict him as one?
>
> Doubtless you have reams of evidence to support this.

It's well known!  Just one example is Robert Spencer's recent book.
Read it.

hummingbird wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:57:31 +0000, James Hammerton
> 
>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
cut

>
> >>>* ``As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive
> >>>about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular
> >>>trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate
> >>>as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human
> >>>rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir
> >>>Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak.
> >>>The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some
> >>>Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.''
> >>
> >>More amazing spin.
> >
> >What precisely is wrong with this comparison? ISTM quite appropriate.
>
> I find it hard to link what happened in the Soviet Union with this
> event. One was official State policy, the other is by a few Moslems.
>

No.   Restrictions on being able to propagate 'religion' that are not
Islam is part of mozlem-imposed dhimmitude.  Anything that is not part
of Islam, since Islam is not merely a 'religion' but akin to a
political party, would constitute a 'religion'.  Islam is not
compatible with freedom of speech since for mozlems the Koran is the
word of God, is therefore final, complete and cannot be contradicted.
There is therefore no need for freedom of speech.  Rather similar to
communism and the Communist Party.

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:24:19 +0000, hummingbird
 wrote:

>I'm saying that his interpretation of how he claims to have seen it
>has only now been prepared - months after the event and much furore.

Now, You are the one making an amazing spin. Your assumption is simply
wrong. I happen to have followed this case closely since the
publication and Mr. Rose have said the exact same things all the time.

>He's had plenty of time to think about his response to the criticisms.

Yes, he has, but it has'nt changed anything.

>Many many Moslems see it differently. I also see it
>differently - in fact I see it in the same way as they do, and IMV the
>way it was intended.

Often people see what they want to see. And some people are simply not
capable of interpreting several layers of symbolism of an image. That
is one of the lessons to be drawn from this incident.

>Because it's taboo in Islam and they want others to respect it.

Please explain why non-muslims should obey muslim rules and taboos in
the public domain?

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 23:00:34 +0200, "halle" 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>hummingbird < ZYLYDWINUSED@spammotel.com > hypisteli näppistään
>nyyssien yhteydessä seuraavasti:
>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:52:14 +0200, "halle" 
>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>>> hummingbird < ZYLYDWINUSED@spammotel.com > hypisteli näppistään
>>> nyyssien yhteydessä seuraavasti:
>>>> Naturally. But only after the even I note.
>>>>
>>>>> Some individuals have taken the
>>>>> religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name
>>>>> of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad
>>>>> name.
>>>>
>>>> Quite. So why produce a cartoon which implies that all Moslems are
>>>> terrorists by depicting their prophet as one?  Why not list those
>>>> who have committed acts of terror in the name of Islam if the
>>>> intention was only to depict a few as terrorists?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Umm, because he was, in every sense of the goddamn word? Well, he
>>> didn't have access to explosives - Greek Fire was copyrighted.
>>>
>>>>> The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the
>>>>> orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This
>>>>> suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an
>>>>> inherent characteristic of the prophet.''
>>>>
>>>> More amazing spin!
>>>
>>> Retard!
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> * ``Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It
>>>>> certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I
>>>>> visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow
>>>>> the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy
>>>>> place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe
>>>>> his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect,
>>>>> but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular
>>>>> democracy.''
>>>>
>>>> That's a subjective opinion wrapped in more amazing spin.
>>>> If I refrain from depicting Mo as a terrorist, I do not see it as
>>>> submitting to the demands of Islam, simly showing respect for other
>>>> peoples' beliefs without any harm to myself.
>>>
>>> Fuck other people's beliefs.
>>>
>>>> Sorry James but this attempt by our Jewish friend Fleming Rose to
>>>> extricate himself from a mess of his own making has all the
>>>> hallmarks of a pile of pants to me.
>>>
>>> It's all right, you anti-semitist little cunt.
>>
>> Rotfl. You don't even know what anti-semitism is.
>> When did you have your only brain cell removed dork?
>
>You aren't fooling anyone you nazi shite.

You don't even know what nazi shite is either.
When did you have your only brain cell removed dork?

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

On 19 Feb 2006 13:18:05 -0800, hwake@freeispshares.co.uk
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>
>hummingbird wrote:
>> On 18 Feb 2006 14:57:24 -0800, hwake@freeispshares.co.uk
>>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>> >hummingbird wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:38:58 +0000, James Hammerton
>> >> 
>> >>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>> >>
>> >> >See:
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html
>> >> >
>> >> >Well worth reading in full, here are some passages I found
>> >> >interesting:
>> >> >
>> >> >* ``We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family
>> >> >and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The
>> >> >cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity,
>> >> >Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps Mr Rose might have thought fit to provide some example
>> >> cartoons of his where he has satirised these other religions.
>> >>
>> >> >And by treating Muslims in
>> >> >Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the
>> >> >Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not
>> >> >strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding,
>> >> >Muslims.''
>> >>
>> >> Amazing spin!
>> >>
>> >> >* ``One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban --
>> >> >has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is
>> >> >saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a
>> >> >terrorist.
>> >>
>> >> Broadly speaking, that's certainly the impression it gave.
>> >>
>> >> >I read it differently:
>> >>
>> >> Naturally. But only after the even I note.
>> >>
>> >> >Some individuals have taken the
>> >> >religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of
>> >> >the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name.
>> >>
>> >> Quite. So why produce a cartoon which implies that all Moslems are
>> >> terrorists by depicting their prophet as one?
>> >
>> >Since Mohammed was a terrorist, why not depict him as one?
>>
>> Doubtless you have reams of evidence to support this.
>
>It's well known!  Just one example is Robert Spencer's recent book.
>Read it.

"Well known"?

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

On 19 Feb 2006 13:27:15 -0800, hwake@freeispshares.co.uk
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>hummingbird wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:57:31 +0000, James Hammerton
>> 
>>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>cut
>
>>
>> >>>* ``As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive
>> >>>about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular
>> >>>trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate
>> >>>as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human
>> >>>rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir
>> >>>Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak.
>> >>>The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some
>> >>>Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.''
>> >>
>> >>More amazing spin.
>> >
>> >What precisely is wrong with this comparison? ISTM quite appropriate.
>>
>> I find it hard to link what happened in the Soviet Union with this
>> event. One was official State policy, the other is by a few Moslems.
>>
>
>No.   Restrictions on being able to propagate 'religion' that are not
>Islam is part of mozlem-imposed dhimmitude.

Please explain. The taboo on not depicting Mo in any way is a part 
of Islamic teaching. All religions have rules and protocols etc. Islam
happens to have that one.

>Anything that is not part
>of Islam, since Islam is not merely a 'religion' but akin to a
>political party, would constitute a 'religion'.

It's not that Islam is akin to a political party but that Moslems
place their allegiance to their prophet and religion higher than to 
a mere bunch of politicians. In the West we subjugate our religion 
to politics. Can you tell me which is more right?

>Islam is not
>compatible with freedom of speech since for mozlems the Koran is the
>word of God, is therefore final, complete and cannot be contradicted.

Quite so but it is subject to interpretation and freedom of speech 
is not banned per se.

>There is therefore no need for freedom of speech.  Rather similar to
>communism and the Communist Party.

No, you are drawing comparisons where none exist.

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:58:52 +0100, B. Nice 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:24:19 +0000, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>I'm saying that his interpretation of how he claims to have seen it
>>has only now been prepared - months after the event and much furore.
>
>Now, You are the one making an amazing spin. Your assumption is simply
>wrong. I happen to have followed this case closely since the
>publication and Mr. Rose have said the exact same things all the time.

Well doubtless you can provide some evidence of this. The link which
James posted was the first explanation from Rose I've seen.

>>He's had plenty of time to think about his response to the criticisms.
>
>Yes, he has, but it has'nt changed anything.
>
>>Many many Moslems see it differently. I also see it
>>differently - in fact I see it in the same way as they do, and IMV the
>>way it was intended.
>
>Often people see what they want to see. And some people are simply not
>capable of interpreting several layers of symbolism of an image. That
>is one of the lessons to be drawn from this incident.

If you mean that people will interpret the cartoons in the way they
want, I agree because it's essentially what I've already said.  But I
still maintain that Rose's explanation is far fetched.

>>Because it's taboo in Islam and they want others to respect it.
>
>Please explain why non-muslims should obey muslim rules and taboos in
>the public domain?

As I've said before, it's a matter of common courtesy.
Would you tell a grossly overweight woman that she's ...'fat'?
Would you tell an ugly woman that she's erm ...'ugly'?

Or would you bite your tongue to avoid offending her?

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:27:25 +0000, hummingbird
 wrote:

>Well doubtless you can provide some evidence of this. The link which
>James posted was the first explanation from Rose I've seen.

Which country are You from? And do You understand danish?

>As I've said before, it's a matter of common courtesy.
>Would you tell a grossly overweight woman that she's ...'fat'?
>Would you tell an ugly woman that she's erm ...'ugly'?
>
>Or would you bite your tongue to avoid offending her?

Bad comparison. There is a big difference between telling a fat lady
that she is fat and drawing a cartoon about how sweets can make Your
belly explode.

It is very interesting to note however, that You seem to argue that
muslims are terrorists - whe should just bite our tounges not to
offend them...

Let me ask You another question concerning "common courtesy". If I as
western minded woman go to a muslim country and insist on walking down
the street wearing only shorts and a bikini asking for respect. How
much respect do You think I will get?

hummingbird  posted
>On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:57:31 +0000, James Hammerton
>
>>
>>They're demanding we refrain from depicting Mo at all.
>
>Because it's taboo in Islam and they want others to respect it.

No, they want us to *obey* it, or that's what their placards say. If you
think there's a difference, can you tell us what exactly you mean by
"respect" here, if you don't mean "obey"?

>
>If Christians had a taboo on depicting Jesus are you suggesting that
>Christians wouldn't be up in arms about Moslems depicting him in
>cartoons as a homesexual having sex with another man or summat?
>Don't we have a blasphemy law? Didn't Mary Whitehouse use it?

Yes, but that is irrelevant, because I am sure that James doesn't agree
with those laws either. 

>
>>> I do not see it as
>>>submitting to the demands of Islam, simly showing respect for other
>>>peoples' beliefs without any harm to myself.
>>
>>If they demand that you don't drink alcohol because it insults them
>>you can show your respect for them without harm to yourself by not
>>drinking alcohol...
>
>We've been here before.
>I'm not sure you can easily differentiate between acts which do not
>affect you (like showing respect for other peoples beliefs) and those
>which do (like having a drink which may be part of your daily ritual).
>Some of this is subjective but the overall picture is one of common
>courtesy.

People try to impose their idea of "common courtesy" on others as a
means of political control. Once it was regarded as "common courtesy"
that everyone in this country had to pretend to be a Christian. Luckily
we have moved on since then, but if we're not careful, we'll be moving
backwards. 

-- 
PeteM
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

hummingbird wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2006 13:27:15 -0800, hwake@freeispshares.co.uk
>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
> >hummingbird wrote:
> >> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:57:31 +0000, James Hammerton
> >> 
> >>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
> >>
> >cut
> >
> >>
> >> >>>* ``As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive
> >> >>>about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular
> >> >>>trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate
> >> >>>as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human
> >> >>>rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir
> >> >>>Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak.
> >> >>>The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some
> >> >>>Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.''
> >> >>
> >> >>More amazing spin.
> >> >
> >> >What precisely is wrong with this comparison? ISTM quite appropriate.
> >>
> >> I find it hard to link what happened in the Soviet Union with this
> >> event. One was official State policy, the other is by a few Moslems.
> >>
> >
> >No.   Restrictions on being able to propagate 'religion' that are not
> >Islam is part of mozlem-imposed dhimmitude.
>
> Please explain. The taboo on not depicting Mo in any way is a part
> of Islamic teaching. All religions have rules and protocols etc. Islam
> happens to have that one.

Why are they trying to impose islamic teaching on the rest of us,
unless they are trying to make us dhimmis?

> >Anything that is not part
> >of Islam, since Islam is not merely a 'religion' but akin to a
> >political party, would constitute a 'religion'.
>
> It's not that Islam is akin to a political party but that Moslems
> place their allegiance to their prophet and religion higher than to
> a mere bunch of politicians.

Yes islam IS akin to a political party because islam is not merely a
religion, it is a whole way of life.  There is no difference between
religion and politics in islam.

> In the West we subjugate our religion
> to politics. Can you tell me which is more right?

Not very surprisingly I consider the Western way is more right.  At
least one can attempt - through freedom of speech not least - to
subject policy to reason.  I find that preferable to having rules
imposed by dogma.

> >Islam is not
> >compatible with freedom of speech since for mozlems the Koran is the
> >word of God, is therefore final, complete and cannot be contradicted.
>
> Quite so but it is subject to interpretation and freedom of speech
> is not banned per se.

No it is NOT subject to interpretation, for the reasons given above.

> >There is therefore no need for freedom of speech.  Rather similar to
> >communism and the Communist Party.
>
> No, you are drawing comparisons where none exist.

It is a valid, and useful, comparison.

hummingbird wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2006 13:18:05 -0800, hwake@freeispshares.co.uk
>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
> >
> >hummingbird wrote:
> >> On 18 Feb 2006 14:57:24 -0800, hwake@freeispshares.co.uk
> >>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
> >>
> >> >hummingbird wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:38:58 +0000, James Hammerton
> >> >> 
> >> >>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
> >> >>
> >> >> >See:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Well worth reading in full, here are some passages I found
> >> >> >interesting:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >* ``We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family
> >> >> >and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The
> >> >> >cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity,
> >> >> >Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions.
> >> >>
> >> >> Perhaps Mr Rose might have thought fit to provide some example
> >> >> cartoons of his where he has satirised these other religions.
> >> >>
> >> >> >And by treating Muslims in
> >> >> >Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the
> >> >> >Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not
> >> >> >strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding,
> >> >> >Muslims.''
> >> >>
> >> >> Amazing spin!
> >> >>
> >> >> >* ``One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban --
> >> >> >has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is
> >> >> >saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a
> >> >> >terrorist.
> >> >>
> >> >> Broadly speaking, that's certainly the impression it gave.
> >> >>
> >> >> >I read it differently:
> >> >>
> >> >> Naturally. But only after the even I note.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Some individuals have taken the
> >> >> >religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of
> >> >> >the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name.
> >> >>
> >> >> Quite. So why produce a cartoon which implies that all Moslems are
> >> >> terrorists by depicting their prophet as one?
> >> >
> >> >Since Mohammed was a terrorist, why not depict him as one?
> >>
> >> Doubtless you have reams of evidence to support this.
> >
> >It's well known!  Just one example is Robert Spencer's recent book.
> >Read it.
>
> "Well known"?

Yes!
Sources for the chapter Muhammad: Prophet of War: Translationn of Ibn
Ishaq's Strat Rasul Allah, Umdat al-Salik, etc., Muhammed Ibn Ismaiel
Al-Bukhari translation of the meanings and so on.
>From muhammad: prophet of war "Muhammad led armies and ordered
assassinations of his enemies.  Writer takes his examples solely from
islamic texts.  He writes 'Muhammad .. was a man of war.  He taught his
followers to fight for his new religion.  He said that their god allah
had commanded them to take up arms.  And muhammad no armchair general
fought in numerous battles.

 Muhammed the raider: ultimately Muhammad would turn from violent words
to violent deeds ... fled Mecca for medina ... band of trible warriors
had accepted him as a prophet.  In Medina these new muslims began
raiding caravans, with muhammad personally leading many of these raids
.... kept the muslims solvent ... led soon after the raid against
another caravan ... lots of the victims captured or killed plead with
muhammad for their children ... muhammad says 'hell' will look after
the victims' children ... beheadings ... bodies thrown down well. Lots
of booty at another battle ... allah warns the muslims not to consider
booty won at badr to belong to anyone but muhammad.

"From being a tiny, despised community, the Muslims were now a force
with which the pagans of Arabia had to reckon - and they began to
strike terror in the hearts of their enemies".
"anyone who insults or even opposes Muhammad or his people deserves a
humiliating death - by beheading if possible ... in accordance with
Allah's command [all written by mohammed of course!] to 'smite the
necks' of the 'unbelievers' (Koran 47:4).

"Assassination and deceit: Flushed with victory, Muhammad stepped up
his raiding operations ... Striding into the center of the marketplace
of ... a Jewish tribe... he announced to the crowds 'O Jews, beware
lest God bring upon you the vengeance that He brought upon Quraysh
[tribe Mohammed had crushed by raids and battles] and become muslims
.... he laid siege on them until they offered him unconditional
surrender ... even then m's anger was not assuaged.  He found a new
focus for it in a jewish poet who composed amatory verses of an
insulting nature about muslim women .. m asked his followers 'who is
willing to kill [the poet]? ... [a muslim did using lies sanctioned by
mohammed].  [After the murder] "Muhammad issued a blanket command:
"Kill any Jew that falls into your power".

M lost a battle .. . uncle killed and his body mutilated by woman in
revenge for mozlems killing her father, brother, uncle, and eldest
son... m said 'I will mutilate thirty of their men'.

A book you're not supposed to read: A Guillaume, the life of muhammad:
a translation of ibn ishaq's sirat rasul allah, OUP, 1955.  Virtually
every page presents a devastating refutation of the whitewashed,
peaceful Muhammad of PC myth.

>From Qur'an: book of war: "With muhammad's prophetic career so
thoroughly marked by blood and warfare .... "  "Jihadists cite
Muhammad's battles to prove jihad is not just defensive.  In an article
titled 'the true meaning of jihad' posted in 2003 ... one Sidik Aucbur
cites the example of Muhammad against those who would argue that jihad
is purely defensive 'Moreover some will say that jihad was only
defensive; this is incorrect.  A quick study of the Life of the Prophet
.... shows us something different ..." followed by list of battles
instigated by mohammed.

>From Islam: religion of war:  In another hadith repeated several times
.... Muhammed says he has been "commanded to fight against people" until
they become Muslim, and that those who resist risk forfeiting their
lives and property: "The prophet spoke clearly about his own
responsibility to wage war for the religion he had founded: 'I have
been ordered by Allah to fight against the people until they testify
that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is
the Messenger of Allah, and perform as-salat (prayers) and give zakat,
so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and properties
from me [protection racket then].

On 20 Feb 2006 02:01:09 -0800, hwake@freeispshares.co.uk
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>hummingbird wrote:
>> On 19 Feb 2006 13:18:05 -0800, hwake@freeispshares.co.uk
>>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>> >
>> >hummingbird wrote:
>> >> On 18 Feb 2006 14:57:24 -0800, hwake@freeispshares.co.uk
>> >>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>> >>
>> >> >hummingbird wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:38:58 +0000, James Hammerton
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >See:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Well worth reading in full, here are some passages I found
>> >> >> >interesting:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >* ``We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family
>> >> >> >and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The
>> >> >> >cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity,
>> >> >> >Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Perhaps Mr Rose might have thought fit to provide some example
>> >> >> cartoons of his where he has satirised these other religions.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >And by treating Muslims in
>> >> >> >Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the
>> >> >> >Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not
>> >> >> >strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding,
>> >> >> >Muslims.''
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Amazing spin!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >* ``One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban --
>> >> >> >has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is
>> >> >> >saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a
>> >> >> >terrorist.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Broadly speaking, that's certainly the impression it gave.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >I read it differently:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Naturally. But only after the even I note.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Some individuals have taken the
>> >> >> >religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of
>> >> >> >the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Quite. So why produce a cartoon which implies that all Moslems are
>> >> >> terrorists by depicting their prophet as one?
>> >> >
>> >> >Since Mohammed was a terrorist, why not depict him as one?
>> >>
>> >> Doubtless you have reams of evidence to support this.
>> >
>> >It's well known!  Just one example is Robert Spencer's recent book.
>> >Read it.
>>
>> "Well known"?
>
>Yes!
>Sources for the chapter Muhammad: Prophet of War: Translationn of Ibn
>Ishaq's Strat Rasul Allah, Umdat al-Salik, etc., Muhammed Ibn Ismaiel
>Al-Bukhari translation of the meanings and so on.
>>From muhammad: prophet of war "Muhammad led armies and ordered
>assassinations of his enemies.  Writer takes his examples solely from
>islamic texts.  He writes 'Muhammad .. was a man of war.  He taught his
>followers to fight for his new religion.  He said that their god allah
>had commanded them to take up arms.  And muhammad no armchair general
>fought in numerous battles.
>
> Muhammed the raider: ultimately Muhammad would turn from violent words
>to violent deeds ... fled Mecca for medina ... band of trible warriors
>had accepted him as a prophet.  In Medina these new muslims began
>raiding caravans, with muhammad personally leading many of these raids
>... kept the muslims solvent ... led soon after the raid against
>another caravan ... lots of the victims captured or killed plead with
>muhammad for their children ... muhammad says 'hell' will look after
>the victims' children ... beheadings ... bodies thrown down well. Lots
>of booty at another battle ... allah warns the muslims not to consider
>booty won at badr to belong to anyone but muhammad.
>
>"From being a tiny, despised community, the Muslims were now a force
>with which the pagans of Arabia had to reckon - and they began to
>strike terror in the hearts of their enemies".
>"anyone who insults or even opposes Muhammad or his people deserves a
>humiliating death - by beheading if possible ... in accordance with
>Allah's command [all written by mohammed of course!] to 'smite the
>necks' of the 'unbelievers' (Koran 47:4).
>
>"Assassination and deceit: Flushed with victory, Muhammad stepped up
>his raiding operations ... Striding into the center of the marketplace
>of ... a Jewish tribe... he announced to the crowds 'O Jews, beware
>lest God bring upon you the vengeance that He brought upon Quraysh
>[tribe Mohammed had crushed by raids and battles] and become muslims
>... he laid siege on them until they offered him unconditional
>surrender ... even then m's anger was not assuaged.  He found a new
>focus for it in a jewish poet who composed amatory verses of an
>insulting nature about muslim women .. m asked his followers 'who is
>willing to kill [the poet]? ... [a muslim did using lies sanctioned by
>mohammed].  [After the murder] "Muhammad issued a blanket command:
>"Kill any Jew that falls into your power".
>
>M lost a battle .. . uncle killed and his body mutilated by woman in
>revenge for mozlems killing her father, brother, uncle, and eldest
>son... m said 'I will mutilate thirty of their men'.
>
>A book you're not supposed to read: A Guillaume, the life of muhammad:
>a translation of ibn ishaq's sirat rasul allah, OUP, 1955.  Virtually
>every page presents a devastating refutation of the whitewashed,
>peaceful Muhammad of PC myth.
>
>>From Qur'an: book of war: "With muhammad's prophetic career so
>thoroughly marked by blood and warfare .... "  "Jihadists cite
>Muhammad's battles to prove jihad is not just defensive.  In an article
>titled 'the true meaning of jihad' posted in 2003 ... one Sidik Aucbur
>cites the example of Muhammad against those who would argue that jihad
>is purely defensive 'Moreover some will say that jihad was only
>defensive; this is incorrect.  A quick study of the Life of the Prophet
>... shows us something different ..." followed by list of battles
>instigated by mohammed.
>
>>From Islam: religion of war:  In another hadith repeated several times
>... Muhammed says he has been "commanded to fight against people" until
>they become Muslim, and that those who resist risk forfeiting their
>lives and property: "The prophet spoke clearly about his own
>responsibility to wage war for the religion he had founded: 'I have
>been ordered by Allah to fight against the people until they testify
>that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is
>the Messenger of Allah, and perform as-salat (prayers) and give zakat,
>so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and properties
>from me [protection racket then].

That resembles the Crusaders who weren't described as terrorists.
One also has to view this against the backcloth of many tribal wars
going on in the Middle Ages.  Many Moslems today don't see their
religion as a violent religion.

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

On 20 Feb 2006 00:13:50 -0800, hwake@freeispshares.co.uk
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>hummingbird wrote:
>> On 19 Feb 2006 13:27:15 -0800, hwake@freeispshares.co.uk
>>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>> >hummingbird wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:57:31 +0000, James Hammerton
>> >> 
>> >>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>> >>
>> >cut
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >>>* ``As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive
>> >> >>>about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular
>> >> >>>trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate
>> >> >>>as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human
>> >> >>>rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir
>> >> >>>Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak.
>> >> >>>The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some
>> >> >>>Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.''
>> >> >>
>> >> >>More amazing spin.
>> >> >
>> >> >What precisely is wrong with this comparison? ISTM quite appropriate.
>> >>
>> >> I find it hard to link what happened in the Soviet Union with this
>> >> event. One was official State policy, the other is by a few Moslems.
>> >>
>> >
>> >No.   Restrictions on being able to propagate 'religion' that are not
>> >Islam is part of mozlem-imposed dhimmitude.
>>
>> Please explain. The taboo on not depicting Mo in any way is a part
>> of Islamic teaching. All religions have rules and protocols etc. Islam
>> happens to have that one.
>
>Why are they trying to impose islamic teaching on the rest of us,
>unless they are trying to make us dhimmis?

Bear in mind it's only a tiny tiny minority who choose to interpret
Islam according to this original ideology.

>> >Anything that is not part
>> >of Islam, since Islam is not merely a 'religion' but akin to a
>> >political party, would constitute a 'religion'.
>>
>> It's not that Islam is akin to a political party but that Moslems
>> place their allegiance to their prophet and religion higher than to
>> a mere bunch of politicians.
>
>Yes islam IS akin to a political party because islam is not merely a
>religion, it is a whole way of life.  There is no difference between
>religion and politics in islam.

So politics is "a whole way of life" in Britain is it? I don't think
so. I was trying to describe the subtle difference between a Moslem's
allegiance to Islam compared to our allegiance to politics.

Most Islamic countries also have governments but the govts cannot 
pass any law which violates Islamic rules. That doesn't make Islam 
a political party but a change in the pecking order within their
societies.

You could view Islamic rules as equivalent to a western constitution
which no government can override.

You could compare this with our own judicial system whereby no govt
can pass any law which promotes (eg) violence - ie our judicial system
is higher in the pecking order than any Executive of the day.

Like I said earlier - can you tell me which is best? A government
which has no constraints or one that has?  Britain has no constitution
worthy of the name and today we are suffering from that problem 
under an authoritarian Blair government.

>> In the West we subjugate our religion
>> to politics. Can you tell me which is more right?
>
>Not very surprisingly I consider the Western way is more right.

Quite but obviously you haven't considered my comments above.

>At
>least one can attempt - through freedom of speech not least - to
>subject policy to reason.  I find that preferable to having rules
>imposed by dogma.

Your freedom of speech is being seriously eroded in Britain.

>> >Islam is not
>> >compatible with freedom of speech since for mozlems the Koran is the
>> >word of God, is therefore final, complete and cannot be contradicted.
>>
>> Quite so but it is subject to interpretation and freedom of speech
>> is not banned per se.
>
>No it is NOT subject to interpretation, for the reasons given above.

It must be. You assert that all Moslems view Islam and its rules in
exactly the same way. That is clearly untrue.

>> >There is therefore no need for freedom of speech.  Rather similar to
>> >communism and the Communist Party.
>>
>> No, you are drawing comparisons where none exist.
>
>It is a valid, and useful, comparison.

Not if you try really hard to understand where Islamic rules fit into
their societies as I've described above. You don't have to agree with
their system, just understand it and accept that our system is
different but not automatically better.

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:54:03 +0000, PeteM 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>hummingbird  posted
>>On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:57:31 +0000, James Hammerton
>>
>>>
>>>They're demanding we refrain from depicting Mo at all.
>>
>>Because it's taboo in Islam and they want others to respect it.
>
>No, they want us to *obey* it, or that's what their placards say. If you
>think there's a difference, can you tell us what exactly you mean by
>"respect" here, if you don't mean "obey"?

Since they* have no means by which they can enforce "obey", they* 
must be asking us to show respect, irrespective of a few placards.

*they being a tiny tiny minority.

>>If Christians had a taboo on depicting Jesus are you suggesting that
>>Christians wouldn't be up in arms about Moslems depicting him in
>>cartoons as a homesexual having sex with another man or summat?
>>Don't we have a blasphemy law? Didn't Mary Whitehouse use it?
>
>Yes, but that is irrelevant,

It's not at all irrelevant. I mentioned it to demonstrate that Islam
isn't the only religion which has laws to protect it from abuse. I'm
afraid that too many people in their keenness to identify Islam as a
barmy religion miss this point.

>because I am sure that James doesn't agree
>with those laws either. 

You might be sure but I've no idea what James disagrees with.

If he disagrees as you say, does that mean he will deliberately 
and knowingly violate that Christian law? ...maybe next week?

>>>> I do not see it as
>>>>submitting to the demands of Islam, simly showing respect for other
>>>>peoples' beliefs without any harm to myself.
>>>
>>>If they demand that you don't drink alcohol because it insults them
>>>you can show your respect for them without harm to yourself by not
>>>drinking alcohol...
>>
>>We've been here before.
>>I'm not sure you can easily differentiate between acts which do not
>>affect you (like showing respect for other peoples beliefs) and those
>>which do (like having a drink which may be part of your daily ritual).
>>Some of this is subjective but the overall picture is one of common
>>courtesy.
>
>People try to impose their idea of "common courtesy" on others as a
>means of political control. Once it was regarded as "common courtesy"
>that everyone in this country had to pretend to be a Christian. Luckily
>we have moved on since then, but if we're not careful, we'll be moving
>backwards.

As I've alluded to numerous times before, common courtesy should not
be what any government of the day says it is but should be a part of
our upbringing. Sadly, because so many people have absolutely no idea
whatsoever of common courtesy and think they can barge through life
with complete disregard for everybody else, we find ourselves in a
situation where government believes it's necessary to pass laws to
instruct/educate us. I wish it were not necessary.

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

hummingbird < ZYLYDWINUSED@spammotel.com > hypisteli näppistään
nyyssien yhteydessä seuraavasti:
> That resembles the Crusaders who weren't described as terrorists.
> One also has to view this against the backcloth of many tribal wars
> going on in the Middle Ages.  Many Moslems today don't see their
> religion as a violent religion.

Except for the fact that the Crusades were a strictly defensive conflict. 
Many moslems today don't see Islam as a violent religion you say? Then they 
are VERY ignorant of their OWN religion, I must say.

hummingbird  posted
>On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:54:03 +0000, PeteM 
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>hummingbird  posted
>>>On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:57:31 +0000, James Hammerton
>>>
>>>>
>>>>They're demanding we refrain from depicting Mo at all.
>>>
>>>Because it's taboo in Islam and they want others to respect it.
>>
>>No, they want us to *obey* it, or that's what their placards say. If you
>>think there's a difference, can you tell us what exactly you mean by
>>"respect" here, if you don't mean "obey"?
>
>Since they* have no means by which they can enforce "obey", they* 
>must be asking us to show respect, 

But they don't have any more means to enforce respect than to enforce
obedience. 

And you haven't answered my question: what do they (or you) mean by
"respect", if it doesn't mean "obey"?

>irrespective of a few placards.

Why should our discussion be irrespective of the placards? I thought
they were exactly what it was about.

>
>*they being a tiny tiny minority.
>
>>>If Christians had a taboo on depicting Jesus are you suggesting that
>>>Christians wouldn't be up in arms about Moslems depicting him in
>>>cartoons as a homesexual having sex with another man or summat?
>>>Don't we have a blasphemy law? Didn't Mary Whitehouse use it?
>>
>>Yes, but that is irrelevant,
>
>It's not at all irrelevant. I mentioned it to demonstrate that Islam
>isn't the only religion which has laws to protect it from abuse. I'm
>afraid that too many people in their keenness to identify Islam as a
>barmy religion miss this point.

Not at all. It's raised every time the topic is discussed: should the
law of blasphemy be repealed entirely or extended to cover other
religions? I first heard it discussed in the Last Temptation of Christ
cas, when, 20 years ago?

>
>>because I am sure that James doesn't agree
>>with those laws either. 
>
>You might be sure but I've no idea what James disagrees with.

I'm sure he'll be along in a minute to tell us :)

>
>If he disagrees as you say, does that mean he will deliberately 
>and knowingly violate that Christian law? ...maybe next week?

I don't know, what is the point of your question?

snip

>>People try to impose their idea of "common courtesy" on others as a
>>means of political control. Once it was regarded as "common courtesy"
>>that everyone in this country had to pretend to be a Christian. Luckily
>>we have moved on since then, but if we're not careful, we'll be moving
>>backwards.
>
>As I've alluded to numerous times before, common courtesy should not
>be what any government of the day says it is but should be a part of
>our upbringing.

It should indeed, but different people are entitled to their different
views of what it means and whether it should be legally enforceable. 

> Sadly, because so many people have absolutely no idea
>whatsoever of common courtesy and think they can barge through life
>with complete disregard for everybody else, 

Some do, but that's not what this case is about. It's about controls on
political and intellectual discussion. 

>we find ourselves in a
>situation where government believes it's necessary to pass laws to
>instruct/educate us. I wish it were not necessary.
>

It isn't. The statement "the government believes X is necessary", even
if true, does not imply "X is necessary". 

-- 
PeteM
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:55:11 +0200, "halle" 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>hummingbird < ZYLYDWINUSED@spammotel.com > hypisteli näppistään
>nyyssien yhteydessä seuraavasti:
>> That resembles the Crusaders who weren't described as terrorists.
>> One also has to view this against the backcloth of many tribal wars
>> going on in the Middle Ages.  Many Moslems today don't see their
>> religion as a violent religion.
>
>Except for the fact that the Crusades were a strictly defensive conflict.

Really? That's not what I've read.

>Many moslems today don't see Islam as a violent religion you say? Then they 
>are VERY ignorant of their OWN religion, I must say.

It comes down to what interpretation you choose.

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:56:09 +0000, PeteM 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>hummingbird  posted
>>On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:54:03 +0000, PeteM 
>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>>>hummingbird  posted
>>>>On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:57:31 +0000, James Hammerton
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>They're demanding we refrain from depicting Mo at all.
>>>>
>>>>Because it's taboo in Islam and they want others to respect it.
>>>
>>>No, they want us to *obey* it, or that's what their placards say. If you
>>>think there's a difference, can you tell us what exactly you mean by
>>>"respect" here, if you don't mean "obey"?
>>
>>Since they* have no means by which they can enforce "obey", they* 
>>must be asking us to show respect, 
>
>But they don't have any more means to enforce respect than to enforce
>obedience. 

Quite so, hence my previous comment.

>And you haven't answered my question: what do they (or you) mean by
>"respect", if it doesn't mean "obey"?

One is a request, the other is an order (w/o a means of enforcement).

>>irrespective of a few placards.
>
>Why should our discussion be irrespective of the placards? I thought
>they were exactly what it was about.

Because the placards were being carried by a small handful of people
and thus cannot be taken as representative of the Moslem population,
especially since some Moslems voiced disagreement with the sentiments.

What we're seeing is a lot of people (for their own reasons) asserting
that all Moslems are like the tiny few we saw at demos. It just isn't
true. Wild generalisations are a very risky game.

>>*they being a tiny tiny minority.
>>
>>>>If Christians had a taboo on depicting Jesus are you suggesting that
>>>>Christians wouldn't be up in arms about Moslems depicting him in
>>>>cartoons as a homesexual having sex with another man or summat?
>>>>Don't we have a blasphemy law? Didn't Mary Whitehouse use it?
>>>
>>>Yes, but that is irrelevant,
>>
>>It's not at all irrelevant. I mentioned it to demonstrate that Islam
>>isn't the only religion which has laws to protect it from abuse. I'm
>>afraid that too many people in their keenness to identify Islam as a
>>barmy religion miss this point.
>
>Not at all. It's raised every time the topic is discussed: should the
>law of blasphemy be repealed entirely or extended to cover other
>religions? I first heard it discussed in the Last Temptation of Christ
>cas, when, 20 years ago?

Fine, but it's the first time I've seen it brought up during this
current fiasco. Personally, I'd prefer that the law was abandoned 
for all religions with the agreement of the Moslem community. Such
agreement would remove the bait factor.

>>>because I am sure that James doesn't agree
>>>with those laws either. 
>>
>>You might be sure but I've no idea what James disagrees with.
>
>I'm sure he'll be along in a minute to tell us :)
>
>>
>>If he disagrees as you say, does that mean he will deliberately 
>>and knowingly violate that Christian law? ...maybe next week?
>
>I don't know, what is the point of your question?

There may be an issue of double standards? Perish the thought.

>snip
>
>>>People try to impose their idea of "common courtesy" on others as a
>>>means of political control. Once it was regarded as "common courtesy"
>>>that everyone in this country had to pretend to be a Christian. Luckily
>>>we have moved on since then, but if we're not careful, we'll be moving
>>>backwards.
>>
>>As I've alluded to numerous times before, common courtesy should not
>>be what any government of the day says it is but should be a part of
>>our upbringing.
>
>It should indeed, but different people are entitled to their different
>views of what it means and whether it should be legally enforceable. 

I agree to a certain degree - some common courtesies are subjective
(eg opening a door for a woman) - but others are a fundamental social
requirement and the individual either knows this through
upbringing/education or sometimes has to have it imposed. I'm afraid
that many courtesies which I see as fundamental are seen by others 
as optional.  Sadly, we live in a chav society.

>> Sadly, because so many people have absolutely no idea
>>whatsoever of common courtesy and think they can barge through life
>>with complete disregard for everybody else, 
>
>Some do, but that's not what this case is about. It's about controls on
>political and intellectual discussion. 

I cannot see how depicting Mo in abusive cartoons can be described as
"political and intellectual discussion".

>>we find ourselves in a
>>situation where government believes it's necessary to pass laws to
>>instruct/educate us. I wish it were not necessary.
>>
>
>It isn't. The statement "the government believes X is necessary", even
>if true, does not imply "X is necessary".

When govt passes a law saying that "X is necessary", it becomes
enforceable whether you/I think it's necessary - or not.
You can become a martyr but it rarely changes the law.

-- 
NuLav and Tory contempt for honesty and integrity is
only exceeded by their contempt for the British people.

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:45:54 +0000, hummingbird
 wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:54:03 +0000, PeteM 
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>hummingbird  posted
>>>On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:57:31 +0000, James Hammerton
>>>
>>>>
>>>>They're demanding we refrain from depicting Mo at all.
>>>
>>>Because it's taboo in Islam and they want others to respect it.
>>
>>No, they want us to *obey* it, or that's what their placards say. If you
>>think there's a difference, can you tell us what exactly you mean by
>>"respect" here, if you don't mean "obey"?
>
>Since they* have no means by which they can enforce "obey", they* 
>must be asking us to show respect, irrespective of a few placards.

They're demanding changes to the law and the Press Complaints
Commission code of practice, to prevent depiction of Mohammed:

http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/index.php/?p=49

That's more than merely a request to "respect" their taboo.

>*they being a tiny tiny minority.
>
>>>If Christians had a taboo on depicting Jesus are you suggesting that
>>>Christians wouldn't be up in arms about Moslems depicting him in
>>>cartoons as a homesexual having sex with another man or summat?
>>>Don't we have a blasphemy law? Didn't Mary Whitehouse use it?
>>
>>Yes, but that is irrelevant,
>
>It's not at all irrelevant. I mentioned it to demonstrate that Islam
>isn't the only religion which has laws to protect it from abuse. I'm
>afraid that too many people in their keenness to identify Islam as a
>barmy religion miss this point.
>
>>because I am sure that James doesn't agree
>>with those laws either. 
>
>You might be sure but I've no idea what James disagrees with.

FWIW, I do disagree with the law against blasphemy.

>If he disagrees as you say, does that mean he will deliberately 
>and knowingly violate that Christian law? ...maybe next week?

No, though AIUI saying "Jesus Christ" as an expletive is supposed to
be a form of blasphemy and I have on occasion done so.

Incidently one of my favourite cartoons, South Park, regularly
blasphemes against Christianity (and pretty much all religions), by
lampooning major religious figures, including Jesus himself (and Satan
and God). They've depicted Mohammed too, long before all the trouble
over the Danish cartoons flared up...

James

--
James Hammerton, http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
Contributor to Magna Carta Plus: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
Magna Carta Plus News weblog: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/index.php

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:27:58 +0000, hummingbird
 wrote:

[snip]

>>>>because I am sure that James doesn't agree
>>>>with those laws either. 
>>>
>>>You might be sure but I've no idea what James disagrees with.
>>
>>I'm sure he'll be along in a minute to tell us :)
>>
>>>
>>>If he disagrees as you say, does that mean he will deliberately 
>>>and knowingly violate that Christian law? ...maybe next week?
>>
>>I don't know, what is the point of your question?
>
>There may be an issue of double standards?

So, according to you, if someone disagrees with a law but does not
deliberately violate it, that raises a question of double standards?!

James

--
James Hammerton, http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
Contributor to Magna Carta Plus: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
Magna Carta Plus News weblog: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/index.php

James Hammerton wrote:
> See:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html
>
> Well worth reading in full, here are some passages I found
> interesting:
>
> * ``We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family
> and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The
> cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity,
> Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in
> Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the
> Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not
> strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding,
> Muslims.''

Good point!
>
....snip to point ..
> * ``Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly
> didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I
> show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as
> I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place.

I was under the impression that unbelievers are not allowed into
mosques, unlike a church, temple or synagogue.  Is this wrong?
yD


But if a believer
> demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public
> domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And
> that is incompatible with a secular democracy.''
>
> * ``As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive
> about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular
> trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate
> as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human
> rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir
> Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak.
> The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some
> Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.''

Artists are the first to go in a revolution, then intelelctuals,
scientists and engineers.  Where does the money come from that an
mullah or imam, I don't recall, can offer a reward of $1million to kill
the cartoonist?
yD

.... snip...
> James
>
> --
> James Hammerton, http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
> Contributor to Magna Carta Plus: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
> Magna Carta Plus News weblog: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/index.php