« Olympic Grit ... | Main | Rising Above The Rhetoric - The IMF, China and Japan »

23 September 2012

Comments

Bob

"The "Kate" portfolio could not of course happen in the Moslem world - and now you get some sense of why the women are covered up"

Are you sure? I always thought it was because fundamental Islam is an intolerant religion which makes women completely subservient to men. I didn't think they covered up to avoid the risk of their titties being photographed by paparazzi.

"We know that there are fanatical islamists, just like there are fanatical Christians, who seek opportunities to become disruptive"

Murdering the US Ambassador doesn't seem like simple "disruption" to me. Disrupt is what the campers under the HSBC building did. I know you didn't have much sympathy for their cause, but at least they didn't murder anyone. Likening fanatical islamists and their actions to fanatical Christians is shockingly insulting.

When freedom of expression is severely under fire as it is in these cases, you might expect extreme reactions in the form of the satires you mention. The real risk is that bar for fundamentalists to be insulted and resort to extreme violence keeps getting lowered.

The implication of your article is that the cause of the killing and violence is the makers of the film. The film is a crummy, amateurish and wholly worthless effort which deserves to disregarded. The cause of the violence is an interpretation of a religion, not shared by most of the religions adherents, which has more in common with the mores of the middle ages than those of the 21st century.

David Eldon

The Koran is quite explicit about the modesty of dress, and has little to do with subservience. However, the point about Kate was more to do with privacy than about Islamic rules which may well seem strange to many of us.
As I have said in my Blogs before, I do not condone any acts of violence or terrorism and the killing of anyone, whoever they are, is unacceptable to any right minded individual. As to the point about "fanatical Christians" (and accepting that Christendom has come on, whereas Islam is somewhat behind), perhaps the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the witches of Salem and many similar other episodes in history were okay?
I think where I agree with you is your statement that the film should be disregarded. The reality, however, is that it is not likely to be - and when I spoke about common sense in my Blog, maybe I omitted to stress I meant common sense by both sides. The protestors, a violent minority, are indeed from the Middle Ages, but they are living in our world. If Common Sense had prevailed, the scoreline would have been different.
As a further note, I was going to post a short blog today wondering whether the same Muslims who were accused in Britain of "grooming" young white girls for sex and prostitution were also out there expressing their "outrage" at the injustice they felt had been done to their prophet. Hypocrisy.
We live in a strange world - and I fear it is going to get stranger.

Paul

"Likening fanatical islamists and their actions to fanatical Christians is shockingly insulting."

I find your Christian indignation and naïveté shockingly insulting. Who do you suppose people are more likely to pay attention to, the man with a beard and headscarf shouting in a foreign language burning flags, or the clean-shaven, suit wearing head of a a Christian organisation that says that "chosing" to be gay is more harmful and creates a greater strain on the public financially than smoking? Or the elected politician who stands up in the Senate and claims that legal bestiality is the next step if you allow same-sex marriage. Both happened recently in Australia. In the US last week a Republican politician used the Bible to justify a call to execute children if they don't respect their parents.

While the Islamic riots were about ideology and disrespecting a god, the Christian lobby around the world don't get upset about theology, they use theology as a weapon to misguide and repress and to try and affect social change (or indeed inhibit social change) that has implications across people of all faiths. The furore about the YouTube video has died down - until there's a slow news day and 14 year old girls aren't being shot in the head by religious extremists for wanting an education - but the Christian war continues daily only without the use swords but with rhetoric.

The comments to this entry are closed.