Vienna synagogue attack

[wiggin]

Hazir, I get what you're saying but two responses:

1. If you're trying to make a point to make people who agree with you feel better, sure that might be a good approach. But I would assume that any action is actually targeted at the coreligionists of those who are committing violence in Muhammad's name. Perhaps the theory is that a confrontational approach will convince them they cannot solve this issue with violence, but I think that's silly - it's likely to just make said coreligionists more sympathetic to those advocating violence. So it seems counterproductive.

2. On a less practical level, I think that there is frankly no reason to intentionally antagonize someone else and insult their beliefs if said beliefs are fundamentally harmless. And while we both probably agree that there are a lot of religious beliefs that are far from harmless, a choice not to create visual representations of one's prophet doesn't seem all that problematic. That doesn't mean that all depictions of Muhammad should be off limits to others - that is indeed restrictive. But it does mean that someone choosing to not only actively antagonize but do so in the most insulting way possible... well, such behavior is legal but regrettable. It should not be lauded or copied just to make a point.


I frankly don't think this is such a religious issue. There are other symbols - national, ethnic, or otherwise - that also engender very intense feelings in certain communities. (Think a Confederate battle flag in much of the US, or the Union Jack in a Republican stronghold in NI during the Troubles.) Is it unreasonable to suggest that one should attempt to be sensitive to these feelings assuming there is no substantial harm in doing so?

[Hazir]

Hazir, I get what you're saying but two responses:

1. If you're trying to make a point to make people who agree with you feel better, sure that might be a good approach. But I would assume that any action is actually targeted at the coreligionists of those who are committing violence in Muhammad's name. Perhaps the theory is that a confrontational approach will convince them they cannot solve this issue with violence, but I think that's silly - it's likely to just make said coreligionists more sympathetic to those advocating violence. So it seems counterproductive.

2. On a less practical level, I think that there is frankly no reason to intentionally antagonize someone else and insult their beliefs if said beliefs are fundamentally harmless. And while we both probably agree that there are a lot of religious beliefs that are far from harmless, a choice not to create visual representations of one's prophet doesn't seem all that problematic. That doesn't mean that all depictions of Muhammad should be off limits to others - that is indeed restrictive. But it does mean that someone choosing to not only actively antagonize but do so in the most insulting way possible... well, such behavior is legal but regrettable. It should not be lauded or copied just to make a point.


I frankly don't think this is such a religious issue. There are other symbols - national, ethnic, or otherwise - that also engender very intense feelings in certain communities. (Think a Confederate battle flag in much of the US, or the Union Jack in a Republican stronghold in NI during the Troubles.) Is it unreasonable to suggest that one should attempt to be sensitive to these feelings assuming there is no substantial harm in doing so?

1. Yes, indeed, for now these people will tend to sympathise more with the perpetrators of violence, but that's really not relevant. What needs to be destroyed is the idea that there is something intrinsically wrong with making fun of religion or its symbols. In America you have less experience with the need of society to liberate itself from religious oppression, but here on this side of the Atlantic we didn't get your freedom of religion handed on a silver plate. We couldn't consider freedom of religion before we had conquered the right of freedom from religion. In this fight we achieved a desensitized religious sphere. We can't accept a new religion to use and abuse the power of the state, limiting the freedom of others with a claim of necessary respect for their sensitivities.

2. I don't think it's 'essentially harmless' to use your religious believes to limit the freedoms of others. History gives me no reason to believe that a mandatory respect for religion doesn't lead to misery for those who choose to express their lack of believe.

3. I think it's very much a religious issue, a misled type of religious sensitivity maybe but very much religious nonetheless. I always wonder how weak these type of muslims actually their God is that he needs a hands-on defense by human beings. I also don't understand how they make 'caricatures' of Mohammed, such an especially grievous sort of depiction. It seems that they are incapable of accepting that also the Messenger was a mere human being.

4. I don't really see how referencing alternative battleflags makes a difference here.