Culture of offence

First Muslims were offended by a Danish newspaper. Now Hindus have been offended by a French film and Christians by an American TV show (again).

These religious folk really need to lighten up a bit.

Mind you, I haven't heard of any Hindus or Christians killing people or burning down any embassies yet.

Comments

[TJL on 21.02.06 at 17:01]

It's happening in southern Nigeria.

[JSM on 21.02.06 at 17:10]

"Mind you, I haven't heard of any Hindus or Christians killing people or burning down any embassies yet."

Well, the Christians had their "killing of doctors that perform abortions" spree a few years ago.

[Kristen Sousa on 21.02.06 at 17:19]

I first read about this in The Sunday Times:

"A minister in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh has offered a £6m reward to anyone who beheads one of the Danish cartoonists who outraged Muslims by depicting the prophet Muhammad.
Yaqoob Qureshi, minister of minority welfare, said the killer would also receive his weight in gold. He made the offer during a rally in his constituency in Meerut, northeast of Delhi. Protesters then burnt an effigy of a cartoonist and some Danish flags.
A Pakistani cleric has also offered a $1m reward — and a car — as a “prize” to anyone who kills one of the cartoonists. Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi made his announcement after Friday prayers in the northwestern Pakistani city of Peshawar." (See also: "Pakistani cleric offers rewards for killing cartoonists" (Reuters, 2006/02/17))

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2047114,00.html

*just shakes her head*

[J Starling on 21.02.06 at 17:20]

Have we forgotten the Inquisition, the conquest of the Americas and the fact that some in the Muslim world see the war on terror as a crusade of a Christian West against Muslims? Depends on ones perception and what time frame one cares to look at. As for the Hindus, what about Ayhodya and the massacre of Muslims in 2002 in Gujarat. A whole ocean of blood has been shed in the name of this or that religious or philosophical belief system. Most of the time however this has been doen for political reasons and not any actual spiritual causes. I don't think any one belief system is any more prone to violence than another. One has to consdier external political and economic factors to make sense of what masquerades as religious extremism.

[SmokingGun on 21.02.06 at 17:38]

*just shakes her head*

Unbelievable. But at least you still have one to shake!

This whole thing has become so ridiculous. In this instance we now have a Minister in India who has literally put a hit out on someone. Common sense and common law would suggest that anyone doing such a thing should be thrown in jail pronto.

The real stupidity of this whole mess is that the people who will end up suffering the most are the muslims who live in places like Denmark. No one will trust them and once trust is gone no one will want them or worst still do harm to them. Very sad.

[Bill Cook on 21.02.06 at 17:42]

I am non religious but I should point out that some of the worst massacres including genocide was carried out by athiests and others, Stalin and Pol Pot or back to the days of Ghengis Khan

Good and evil goes deeper than religion I believe.

[Triggerfish on 21.02.06 at 17:42]

"... I don't think any one belief system is any more prone to violence than another ..."

In general terms I agree with most everything in your post. But I'd venture to say two of the great 20th century 'Isms - Fascism and Communism - were inherently predisposed towards violence. Despite claims by both Marx and Hitler to have discovered "scientific" understandings of history, these were secular religions both - the ugliest and most irrational of belief systems.

[Bill Cook on 21.02.06 at 18:02]

Religion is defined as "the belief in a superhuman controlling power"

So if we all put our faith in the USA we will be safe from death and destruction, as there has never been a more superhuman controlling power than the USA.

[SmokingGun on 21.02.06 at 18:08]

Other than Dick Cheney with a shotgun and a few beers under his belt....

[J Starling on 21.02.06 at 18:25]

Dear Triggerfish, I'ld rather not get into a longwinded debate on Marxism and Fascism. I will simply say that having read virtually all of Marx's work I see no reason to infer that it is inherently prone to violence. I have argued before and no doubt will argue again that the USSR suffered a counter-revolution, manifested as Stalin, and resmebled Fascism a lot more than it did Marxism. MArxism was abused in name, just as Islam, Christianity and Hinduism can be.

[david on 21.02.06 at 19:03]

Muslims can tell how believers of the Koran how to believe, not the majority non-believers. These cartoons in anyone else's language was satiracle and other religions are portrayed thus too. Take God always portrayed as an old man with a white beard. They need to get a grip and perhaps protest about the death of 1000s of muslims in iraq etc killed by, you guessed it other muslims. If we follow the koran on the cartoons, should we follow shria law like stoning, beheading, etc no of course not so why aren't muslims complaining that we don't chop enough heads off. Its ridiculous and they do themselves no good with all this protesting that even less people are going to warm to them and NOT think they are all nutters.

[SmokingGun on 21.02.06 at 19:25]

Limey, much like the PLP piece, maybe you could do a piece of satire on the Muslim faith committing religious suicide. However I suggest you write it poolside at the Hard Rock in Las Vegas.

That way you don't have to worry about any extremists coming looking for you. They don't go to Vegas much. No virgins.

[free speech on 21.02.06 at 19:54]

They are all in heaven, the only way they'll see them is if they blow the hotel up!

[SmokingGun on 21.02.06 at 19:58]

Some people swear that Vegas is a little heavan on earth. But I always thought that was just a typo....

[NoVote on 21.02.06 at 20:17]

"I am non religious but I should point out that some of the worst massacres including genocide was carried out by athiests and others, Stalin and Pol Pot or back to the days of Ghengis Khan"

Bill - this is true, but they didn't do it in the name of athiesim.......they were just evil b*****s!

Perhaps that's your point.

[J Starling on 21.02.06 at 20:50]

Mr. David and Mr. SmokingGun, perhaps you are being tongue in cheek here, but your comments would seem to betray a sad ignorance about that most honourable religion of Islam. One can no more paint all Muslims with the same brush as bin Laden and al-Zarqari anymore than I can portray all Christians as Pat Robertsons, raving creationists and rabid anti-abortionists who become that which they despise, takers of life. It is sad that we in the West should mistake the minority extremists as representatitives of these faiths, simply because the media thrives on sensationalism. I wonder if the Muslim peasants of Arabia, the sub-continent and Africa take it for granted that all Christians are rabid anti-Muslim just as educated Westerners mistake the bin Ladens as average Muslims.

[Bill Cook on 21.02.06 at 21:40]

NV

All crimes against humanity have a common basis usually ie greed power and control and religion is just the drugged Cool Aid that enables the manipulaters.

[Amin Swan on 21.02.06 at 21:51]

Crash three Jetliners into buildings and you hear nothing from these radicals, draw a cartoon picture and all hell breaks loose - I just don't get them. If I would have know, I would have told my mother to name me something else.

[NoVote on 21.02.06 at 22:44]

Bill - you're preaching to the converted, mate!

[NoVote on 21.02.06 at 22:44]

Now, where's that blessed irony key when you need it!!!

[Uncle Elvis on 21.02.06 at 23:05]

um... Amin... we DID hear from them after 9-11, from both moderate and extremist.

[Amin Swan on 21.02.06 at 23:26]

Uncle Elvis,

I don't recall hearing of many Muslims crying in protest to the 9/11 attacks and how it scarred their entire religion. I do recall many jumping up and down with joy.

But a cartoon, I mean spare me. When I think of this I think "Paranoia"

[david on 22.02.06 at 06:42]

Starling, regarding the protests of cartoons which is what I'm talking about, there's been a massive outcry and people all around the world are calling for punishment and rioting with the death of many people, and these people may not be bin laden supporters yet they are still in my eyes extreme. If most muslims are against terorism i ask again, why has cartoons created such public outcry in the muslim world and not terorist acts. Its double standards and until the muslim world take more responsibility for the I accept minority but growing fanatical sector, how can we take you more seriosly. Theres nothing to compare in the christian world with what some muslims are proclaiming. We have a few nutty sectors like anti abortionists and pro-lifers that kill people, but this is different. They are hardly killing their own, unlike muslim terrorists. How can you have a religion which can be interpreted that such behaviour is correct in the eyes of their god? It amazes me and for these sort of reasons I have a poor view of islam. I have a poro view of all religions to be honest but my poorest view is those who don't appreciate that their view is not what everyone believes and so they can't force it on non-believers. Of this I feel muslims are the worst for not accepting this in the current climate and they need to calm down

[breakfast pastry on 22.02.06 at 06:45]

How ridiculous is this? There's been cartoons making fun of every race and every religion for years, why the uproar about this one.
That minister should be put out of his misery.
I really think that more countries should do what Australia's looking at doing; all muslims wanting to live under sharia law will be told to leave. However I think this should extend to all EXTREMIST muslims.
And the Pakistani minister should be allowed to visit his maker.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 22.02.06 at 09:30]

What is it with you guys and religion? Why are the actions of the statistical few used to label an entire religion?

Most of those practicing the Muslim religion are peaceful, law abiding citizens, yet the few extremist are used to form your views of the religion.

Yes, there have been acts of violence by some claiming to be Christians but as a Christian myself I believe Jesus taught love your neighbour as yourself.

Just the same, the teachings of Islam are about loving your neighbour, not destroying people, that is left to the extremists.

With the amount of violence that occurs in Bermuda, is Bermuda a violent society? No, the fact is there is a very small percentage of the population that is involved in such violence and they should not be used to determine the kind of society that Bermuda is.

Limey, we all understand how you feel about religion but do not use the small percentage of those Muslims that are violent to paint the entire religion.

Do all Brits have bad teeth or do we get that impression from what we see of some of them?

[david on 22.02.06 at 09:40]

So why aren't this peaceful majority doing more to condem the muslims giving them all bad press? 30% of muslims polled in UK recently had sympathy for the bombers. Hatred is being preached in mosques in UK and being allowed to do. The leader of Muslim council Sr Iqbal Sacranie has admitted going to a funeral of Hamas spiritual leader who repeatedly sent out suicide bombers to israel and made them martyrs. So no I dispute your use of minority. Sure its a minority actually doing the killing but there's not enough condemnation. Take Iran, muslim country with we are led to believe a population behind their leader who proclaims all sort of nasty evil stuff. Its not enough to say the peaceful majority, such a majority need to take more responsibility for the twisted minority or then its not surprising they get tarred with the same brush. Check out saria law that 40% of muslims wanted in some parts of england in this poll, hmm yes thats peaceful

[Triggerfish on 22.02.06 at 10:21]

"Dear Triggerfish, I'ld rather not get into a longwinded debate on Marxism and Fascism."

Then we won't. Karl Marx certainly wasn't a violent character; he was only arrested once - at a Hyde Park demonstration protesting early pub closing hours! But the reality is that the disciples of Marx certainly perverted his silly secular creed (he was actually a damn good writer when he wasn't pretending to be an economist) into one of the 20th century's most violent belief system. As for Hitler's belief system -- well, the results speak for themselves.

[SmokingGun on 22.02.06 at 10:56]

"One can no more paint all Muslims with the same brush as bin Laden and al-Zarqari anymore than I can portray all Christians as Pat Robertsons, raving creationists and rabid anti-abortionists who become that which they despise, takers of life." - J Starling

"Limey, we all understand how you feel about religion but do not use the small percentage of those Muslims that are violent to paint the entire religion." Guilden

J. Starling - I was poking fun at one of the cartoons actually. The one where Mohammed says go back and stop killing yourselves, there are no more virgins left in heaven.

J Starling/Guilden - The vast majority of the Muslim faith hold the paint brush in their own hands. Until they start painting and we all get to see some results the rest of the world will likely assume they condone the dastardly deeds of the few fanatics and extremists. Unless they are just totally in fear that they will be killed if they say boo. Which is the only reason I might give them the benefit of the doubt. But that's starting to wear thin.

[Ethiops on 22.02.06 at 11:08]

In that light we can say all of the xian faith supports the terrorist acts of america. Christians are for invading iraq and killing over one hundred thousand of its citizens because USA's faith in god would have god on its side.

Atheist and religious are equally stupid.

[Lost in Flatts on 22.02.06 at 11:08]

I think we can all agree that there are bad apples in every bunch, and that if we only consider these in isolation any religion could come out looking pretty terrible.

However, this is not a tiny minority of people, there are 10s of thousands of people at these protests in individual countries, so many so that people are being killed in them! If you reason that not everyone extremist has the ability to attend such protests, then that number jumps up a bit more, and when you further consider that there will be, as with any movement, an exponentially larger amount of people who agree but don't want to actually get out on the street and do something about it, then suddenly you're looking at something much more widespread then say, a crazy bunch of guys in Texas.

Further, there is a real problem within the muslim world that the leaders are not strong enough in the condemnation of violence. Of course they'll release a quick statement for the press, but what are they really doing to curb it? It is their responsibilty to stop these fanatical calls for the death of the cartoonists from going unpunished. It is their responsibilty to prove to the rest of the world that, despite the past few years of constant attacks and killings, islam is in fact still a peaceful religion, and its people are really not supportive of attacks on the west.

I believe that 10 years ago the muslim world was very much innocent until proven guilty, by that I mean an isolated act of violence would not be used to paint an image of the whole region. Unfortunately due to several very high profile attacks in the past few years, they've lost this presumption, as would anyone else in a similar position, and at some point its up to them to prove their true intentions and beliefs.

[PorKy on 22.02.06 at 12:06]

Ethiops religious and aethist are equally stupid. You are either religious or not. And I'm sure there are many millions of Christians who were not in favour of invading Iraq. I've heard of genrealizing things, but you take the cake.

[SmokingGun on 22.02.06 at 12:27]

Actually Ethiops one problem I do have with the Christian faith in the USA is the fact that Pat Robertson called for the assaniation of Venezuela's President and he's still walking around free as a bird. Kind of hard to get too upset with the Muslim Minister in India I guess.

But as far as claiming the invasion of Iraq was religious based I must admit it's the first time heard that theory. Hmmm, I wonder if the Pope had anything to do with it....

[silencedogood on 22.02.06 at 12:48]

Comparisons with Pat Robertson are a red herring.

Robertson apologized shortly thereafter. No plans were made to carry out his suggestion and fundamentalist christians did not take to the street with AK-47's firing bullets into the air or burn the Venezuelan embassy.

It comes to free speech yet again. Had there been violence, then that's a different story called "inciting a riot" or "conspiracy to commit murder" and Robertson would be learning about Sodom and Gommorah first hand in the clink.

[Ethiops on 22.02.06 at 12:59]

Actually SmokingGun I didn’t say it was religious based. I said they support it. Bush has made his faith in God quite clear throughout the war. Which could have easily allowed many to see this as xians vs islam even after knowing well that it isn’t.

Porky a sweeping generalization was the desired effect.

[Raptor on 22.02.06 at 13:17]

Very interesting article, online NY Times:

Furor Over Cartoons Pits Muslim Against Muslim

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/international/middleeast/22cartoons.html?ei=5094&en=042caeefb9900834&hp=&ex=1140670800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

Here are a few short excerpts:

"Jordanian journalist Jihad Momani wrote: 'What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras, or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony?'"

"I keep hearing, 'Why are liberals silent?' said Said al-Ashmawy, an Egyptian judge and author of books on political Islam. 'How can we write? Who is going to protect me?'"

"'Anyone who insults the prophet must face the sword,' said one imam in a recent Friday sermon in Yemen. Another announced, 'The government must execute them.'" [I.e., journalists in the Middle East who published and wrote about the cartoons].

[J Starling on 22.02.06 at 13:17]

The invasion of Iraq was, of course, not done on the basis of religion. However President Bush has used phrases to the effect of 'God is on our side' and so on, which has fueled radical Muslim propaganda. Many Muslims have seen or heard these speeches and not the anit-war protests. Understandably, one could argue that President Bush represents America, and thus one could argue that it is a Christian versus Muslim war - which it isn't. The media hypes things up and focuses on sensationalism. Thats waht it does. I was at Seattle and Quebec when the riots broke out there. They constituted a very small percentage of the anti-globalisation protests. Those committing violence were some radical anarchists and agent provocateurs. We restrained them as best we could, pointing out that their actions would be counter-productive. The result? More often than not people remember the violence and not the anti-globalisation messages. I have been fortunate enough to visit south-east asia and claim friends with Muslims thoughout the Islamic world. Although arguments from authority are weak, but I maintain that the vast majority of Muslims are moderate and oppose the extremists as well as they can. The extremists are a minority. Even in Iraq the Islamic terrorists are small, much of the resistance being from political and national resistance efforts. But it is easier to portray them as fanatics than to accept (for the Americans) that a growing number there oppose the occupation.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 22.02.06 at 13:24]

But wait a second here, the U.S., a supposed Christian nation, wants to dictate it form of democracy and way of life on the Middle East, which is predominantly Muslim, and the Muslim are simply supposed to lie down and accept the ways of the U.S., the "greatest nation" on the face fo the earth?

Anything that goes against the core beliefs of the U.S. is wrong from their perspective.

Anytime you try to dictate someone's way of life you will get retailiation. Whne Hitler wanted to world to be blonde haired and blue eyed the world responded.

i am certain if the Muslim nations truly had the wherewithall to go head to head with the U.S. in war they would. They fight the war in the manner they believe they can make an impact.

Just because the Muslim way of life is different from our, the way they treat their women, etc. is not the same as ours and we view that as wrong. Who are we to dictate another's culture? What makes us so great?

I am not saying that I agree with their tactics by killing innocent civilians but I cannot say that I do not understand why they do what they do.

The Muslims are called terrorist but the Isrealis with their constant attack on Muslims are consider U.S. allies and their weaponery arsonal is financed by the U.S.

The Muslims are considered terrorists yet the U.S. can invade Iraq without any justifiable reason and the U.S. are not considered terrorists. The U.S. can go into a country and forcibly remove a leader it does not agree with and it is not considered to be a terrorist nation.

Something seems off balance here to me but maybe I'm the only one who sees it this way.

[thisgrassman on 22.02.06 at 13:43]

However President Bush has used phrases to the effect of 'God is on our side' and so on, which has fueled radical Muslim propaganda.

Posted by J Starling on 22.02.06 at 13:17

Let's not forget right after 9/11 Bush using his gift for delicate and beguiling diplomacy declares his countries "crusade" against terrorism has begun.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html

The scary thing is I don't think he had a clue what he was saying had such potent historical implications.

I really do hope next time the Americans actually elect a president who owns a passport.

[SmokingGun on 22.02.06 at 13:43]

First things first. Guilden, it's the Muslim Fanatics and Extremists who choose to use terror as a way to control the level of fear within not only the hearts of the so called enemy but their own people that are the terrorists. Not Muslims per se. I would hope most rational people would recognise this. Unfortunately we do not see maasive demonstrations calling for moderation and peaceful means of discourse as opposed to violent actions.

Second: Silencedogood I wouldn't say Pat Robertson is a Red Herring at all. Sometimes people see things in black & white and forget that there is a gray area. My only point is to say that we must keep our own backyards tidy before we have the right to expect others to clean up theirs.

[NSM on 22.02.06 at 14:03]

There's been a lot of discussion about why Muslims are not stepping up to the plate and expressing their disgust of the violent response of an extremist minority. This is not true; Muslims leaders throughout the world have spoken out against the riots, Muslims have written thousands of letters to newspapers and various other media voicing their opposition to the riots, and many websites have been created in an effort to foster better relations between people of different countries and religions. I am a Muslim and therefore can tell you that my inbox has been flooded with emails from leaders in my community urging myself and other followers to write letters to the media and other news outlets to express our disgust of the cartoons AND our dismay at the recklessness of a minority few. The only way to ensure an open dialogue is through the pen, not the sword. Muslims who have read and understood the Qur'an know this. Those who have taken part in deadly riots and are supporting violent acts are not true Muslims; Anyone that preaches hatred and violence only has selfish purposes in mind. Unfortunately, a letter/article denouncing the riots isn't considered as newsworthy as an article/picture that is inflammatory and shocking.

[david on 22.02.06 at 14:16]

I'd like to ask you NSM how many Muslims would report a fellow muslim preaching hatred to the police. They are breaking the law but the police have little power to stop their wretched sermons, mainly because they don't know of them. Do muslims who are against this tell the police, of course not.

The plot thiickens. A youth paper in Saudi Arabia has published the cartoons. Isn't Saudi Arabia meant to be one of the most devout muslim countries. Will their now be demonstartions asking for King Fayid's head? Of course not. They's let this despot dictator continue his appaling regime in the name of islam a little longer, yes he's not too bad lets get the danes!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=377849&in_page_id=1811

[SmokingGun on 22.02.06 at 14:25]

"There's been a lot of discussion about why Muslims are not stepping up to the plate and expressing their disgust of the violent response of an extremist minority."

"Unfortunately, a letter/article denouncing the riots isn't considered as newsworthy as an article/picture that is inflammatory and shocking."

NSM - Stepping up to the plate means getting out into the street with massive crowds showing condemnation of both the cartoons and the extremists in a peaceful manner. Unfortunately writing a letter doesn't even get you into the ball game.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 22.02.06 at 14:30]

SmokingGun,

"Guilden, it's the Muslim Fanatics and Extremists who choose to use terror as a way to control the level of fear within not only the hearts of the so called enemy but their own people that are the terrorists. Not Muslims per se."

Is this not the point I made in my first posts on this thread?

David seems to be happy to condemn all Muslims for the actions of the radicals who are really not practicing Islam anyway.

There are violent and malicious Bermudians does this make all Bermudians violent and malicious? No. Do a large number of Bermudians get openly vocal against the violence and malicious activities? Based on the letters to the editor and the radio talk shows the answer is "No" because there are only a handful that do so. Using this example David would have us all believe that Bermudians as a whole support the violent and malicious acts because they don't agressively speak out.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 22.02.06 at 14:35]

SmokingGun,

Why is your view on stepping up to the plate the correct view?

[silencedogood on 22.02.06 at 14:42]

SmokingGun,

Robertson is a red herring for precisely the reasons I mentioned above which you did not address--He apologized and withdrew his comments after the subsequent widespread uproar, no one attempted to act on his directive, no one was hurt, and no property destroyed. That sounds pretty tidy to me.

If your definition of "tidy" means Robertson doesn't make that statement in the first place, then you are talking restricting the rights of people to their opinions and what they can say. North Korea is spic and span under that definition.

Guilden,

I love that you can sum up the perspective of a nation numbering 320 million and all in just a few short paragraphs. Way to go!

Do you actually believe that the US would go to war with Iraq and sacrifice the lives of its citizens based on just a disagreement? Or that this is just because the big, bad US wants to tell people what to do--those meanies! Please reread the thread from a few weeks back where this was debated ad nauseum.

The US is not considered a terrorist nation because most people pay attention to all the facts on this issue, not just the ones which conveniently reinforce their opinion.

[SmokingGun on 22.02.06 at 14:45]

"The Muslims are called terrorist but the Isrealis with their constant attack on Muslims are consider U.S. allies and their weaponery arsonal is financed by the U.S.

The Muslims are considered terrorists yet the U.S. can invade Iraq without any justifiable reason and the U.S. are not considered terrorists. The U.S. can go into a country and forcibly remove a leader it does not agree with and it is not considered to be a terrorist nation."

Guilden, I understood what you wrote earlier but in this context you seem to digress somewhat. When painting all the people of Israel as terrorists and again the people of the US because of their foreign policies you corrupt the original post.

I just think you need to clarify these facts when talking about Muslims or anyone else for that matter. That's all.

[Uncle Elvis on 22.02.06 at 14:45]

The US is not considered a terrorist nation because most people pay attention to all the facts on this issue, not just the ones which conveniently reinforce their opinion.

I'm sorry, but this made me laugh. Thanks.
That's awesome, but you forgot the irony point.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 22.02.06 at 14:49]

Silence,

It is the leadership of a country that takes it to war not the people themselves. Therefore, I am not summing up a perspective of a nation, just its leaders.

Did the U.S. citizens decide to go to war? No. Bush and his Cabinet decided and many in Congress that initially supported it have since realised that they were lied to about the threat of Iraq and it s support of terrorism.

You are correct in that there is another post that dealt with the war in Iraq and I should have left that out of this discussion and will do so now.

[NSM on 22.02.06 at 14:52]

David: Your generalization of Muslims is dangerous, and only serves to support a divide between people rather than moving towards open discourse and a better understanding of differences among people. Anyone, not just a Muslim, who is threatening the safety of other people should and I believe would be reported to the appropriate authorities.

SmokingGun: There were peaceful protests throughout the world. For example, there were two in Toronto. Is having demonstrations the only way to step up to the plate?? I would think that instead it would be any and all attempts to encourage open dialogue amongst people--whether it's having a a community meeting, writing on the net or to various media, and just talking to people in general on the street, in your neighbourhood. The more people know about each other, the finer the line becomes between them.

[silencedogood on 22.02.06 at 14:57]

Guilden,

You are right in saying that because a relatively small number of bermudians are violent we should not paint all with that brush.

I think david's point is that in comparison to the present day behavior of other relgions a relatively large number of muslims are violent. I certainly don't think all muslims are violent, and I don't think david does either. I would not say either that Islam is a religion of violence because its not.

All I'm saying is that because there is a large and vocal number of extremists it puts the burden on the moderates and liberals to make their voice heard. If they speak up about cartoons but not about violence against non-muslims then their silence supports the extremists.

The same would be true of the christians in spain during the inquisitions. Would you not agree that the international community is partly to blame for the genocide in rwanda because they stood by and did nothing a.k.a. as failure to act or an omission?

If so, don't members of the same religion owe more of a duty to their god and themselves to counter extremists who are tainting both with their violence than foriegn countries have to protect other countries with whom they have no connection? (note: I'm not speaking about belgium which did have a strong duty but which is rarely blamed)

I can appreciate a liberal muslim in yemen staying quiet, but in the Europe, South America, North America, and Asia? Not really.