What is it about the Danish and French humor that illicited death threats and outrage, is it really the focus on images of Mohammad, or is it if the humor is mean spirited or good natured, or what?
To answer your question:
There are even muslin comedians who poke fun at terrorists and fundamentalist members of the religion.
Most muslims have no problem with satire and humor against public figures and the government.
But the Danish and French cartoons and videos were direct attacks on Prophet Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.
And is beyond offensive to the average muslin and will not be tolerated. .......
'... will not be tolerated.' And what is that supposed to mean?
It means pay careful attention to what aggravates muslims to the point of violence and HAND IT BACK TO THEM IN
EQUAL MEASURE WHEN THEY DISH IT OUT. ---
for every bible confiscated in Saudi Arabia------grab a Koran and besmear it with pig shit. If a muslim mocks the concept of "trinity"----just kill off a few of them starting with their sluts in the marketplace Sunni is right ---DO NOT
TOLERATE "insult"
Dear irosie91 Yes and No.
Yes, we should be willing to go to the same extent as others and apply their own laws back to them.
But no, if we do not believe in retributive justice by unchecked authority, if we believe in "due process"
and right to defense before meting out an agreed punishment under law, then we cannot violate our own laws
to start following theirs. We can ask other people who believe in those laws to do that to each other, but not us
if it is in violation of our laws.
So we need to separate the groups.
If those Jihadists or other extreme Zionists and Armaggedon worshippers want to play these war games
on each other, then let's create zones where they can live under such laws and not impose on anyone else.
We do not need to 'stoop to their level' or it creates an endless cycle of retribution back and forth.
Such has destroyed the peace in the Middle East from retribution, and trying to assume responsibility for retributive justice.
Where people are EQUAL is under the laws of Restorative Justice.
So we need to live by and enforce those laws.
These Terrorists crossed the line by attacks such as 9/11 challenging America and democratic ideals:
If people who do not follow or respect due process commit war crimes not following the rules of engagement,
do we or do we not apply the same "due process" and civil procedures to the wrongdoers, or do we resort
to enforcing their own laws against them? So this brought out the spirit of war to a whole new level,
and we are still trying to address that and clean up the messes made.
What went wrong is punishing people "collectively" in "association" with the people or groups perceived as doing wrong.
What we need to do is address each person "individually" and not punish by class.
But at this point, people are grouping and trying to punish by association collectively, so that is what is causing endless war.
The way to de-escalate this is to work one-on-one with each other, and hold ourselves and each other equally accountable for what we, individually, are responsible for correcting. And quit this blaming and punishing by collective association by group.
Break it down into resolvable conflicts. And quit taking our issues from that and "projecting collectively" onto others.
Or it will never end.
The cycles and patterns of "retributive justice" that will go back and forth, escalating the injuries and damages on both sides,
can be broken by RESTORATIVE JUSTICE where we embrace and work together to heal these wounds of war,
and answer for the injustices done, not project blame forward and create more and more dissension and violent reactions.
How can we identify the peaceful people willing to resolve conflicts if everyone has jumped into the melee taking sides?
We need to quit piling more on to the mess, distinguish the people who CAN work one-on-one to
identify the damages and losses that need restitution and resolution,
and then the people who do NOT believe in redressing grievances civilly will stand out.
Those people can be asked to live under their own system away from those of us who believe
in democratic due process to resolve grievances, rebuild and restore our nations and neighborly relations.
We need to distinguish these groups, and unite under the democratic laws if we are going to successfully weed them out.
So we CANNOT be acting with "retribution" and expect to tell who is and who isn't willing to follow the laws.
if we keep playing the SAME games with a "retributive" attitude, THAT's how the terrorists can keep taking advantage of
the division. Taking advantage of the rift between peacemakers who want conflict resolution, and pro-war "anti-" type groups that the terrorists can also hide behind and stir up by fear-based retribution. Don't fall for their bait and stoop to their level.
Rise above and that is where we CAN hold the terrorists, the Jihadists and extreme warmongers to their own rules.
But having them police each other, govern themselves under these rules that don't ensure due process.
Set up place where they have the RIGHT to exercise their strong armed regimes among followers who AGREE
to those policies. And let anyone who does not agree LEAVE. So only those people will be forced to live under their own laws.
We can only have authority to command this separation if we RESPECT the ways of both sides to live by their own laws.
If we keep "crossing the line" ourselves, and injecting ourselves into their systems without the same rules,
then we blur and lose moral standing and authority to make such arguments. We can't enforce laws if we violate them, too.
Those who remain on consistent higher ground will have more weight, more authority to hold others to their own laws.
We lose that standing if we violate our own laws and respect for due process. We must petition peaceably.
I AGREE with you IF WE SET UP those terms UP FRONT as the AGREED response. Sure, my bf also agrees with you, and believes in pouring pig's blood on the bodies of terrorists as the response; but we'd all have to AGREE to those terms in advance, and then it is permissible by religious freedom if all sides agree that is within the law.
If not, we need to AGREE what IS the correct response. And I believe it is to separate the regimes who want to live by those unchecked laws, where they don't have due process and don't separate powers of judge, jury and executioner,
And then whenever we run across other people who don't believe in due process of law, we send those people over THERE to live in a society that doesn't have those protections.
So if we set up this agreement, both sides will get their way.
The people who want a totalitarian regime where they can exercise full authority without check or balances
and due process can have that, and we AGREE to send them members who believe in bypassing due process.
