Re: Militants Surround EU Offices in Gaza Over 'Offensive' Cartoons
So it's okay to attack a large (veeeeeery large) group's core beliefs if it's the means to making a broader statement? I understand what you're saying about the magazine trying to take a stand on free speech, but it seems senseless why they might choose perhaps the most volatile religion as the means to that end? I also suspect that the whole truth isn't being told. Why Islam, of all groups? Why not pick on American Christians? Sure we might get a little ticked off, but we'll just sort of shrug it off as "European secularism" and go about our merry way without burning books and effigies. Why not Gandhi eating a Big Mac (if, in fact, McDonalds does use real beef)? I strongly suspect that there's no small minority of Europeans who are mortified by the prospect of a growing Muslim population in the historically almost-all-white, all-Christian continent.
So you're comparing G-Dub to the founder of one of the great religions of this world, even if only in jest??? In my mind, there's a slight (and, by "slight," I mean "pretty extraordinary") difference between the two and their impacts on world religion.
It's funny: people say this alot, but then sort of ignore it when it comes down to the nitty gritty. What happens if people take that attitude dealing with Iraq? "Oh well, the U.S. wants to invade. No sense in us doing anything to try and stop them." "Well, golly, that white police officer just beat the tar out of me, a black man, with his nightstick for no reason whatsoever. Oh, heck, I won't press the issue, just move on, that's what I always say..."
__________________
Last edited by RMadd : 02-06-2006 at 01:25 AM.
|