Such raging crowds, of course, rarely appear in the modern West (unless as soccer hooligans). But they have become a common site across the Muslim world every time a pope, some cartoonist or, now, the British queen, step over some line in the sand drawn by the forces of intolerance.
The West should join together to vigorously defend its symbols and civilization that, with all its flaws, still offers the best life to the most people.
An ever-growing number of Muslims worldwide feel that they are engaged in a life-and-death struggle with the West for power, for territory, for limited resources and ideas.
As with all wars, symbols are important. But this is especially true in the Muslim mind which is governed by a rigid code of honor and shame. In this context symbols are not just images, but a matter of life and death. He who stands by and watches as his symbols are trashed has lost his honor.
The honor-and-shame code affects all Muslim societies from top to bottom--family, tribe and the Umma, or the Muslim nation. An insider who breaches this code, which is Salman Rushdie's great "crime," must be put to death. He shamed Muslims in two very serious ways: He left Islam, and he insulted Islam's infallible founder.
More at:
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.26395/pub_detail.asp
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on June 26, 2007]
Note: http://www.aei.org/publ...
Defining The Territory Of Insult
Posted on Monday, June 25 at 16:21 by drcalebContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
A SNIPPET
AEI research is conducted through three primary research divisions: Economic Policy Studies, Social and Political Studies, and Defense and Foreign Policy Studies. It also works through several specialized programs such as the Brady Program on Culture and Freedom, the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, the National Research Initiative (which sponsors research by university-based scholars), the AEI Press, and The American”
I shall have to investigate this organisation before going off
---
"The world needs anger. The world often continues to allow evil because it isn't angry enough.
- Father Bede Jarrett
(with thanks to Willie T)
A SNIPPET
AEI research is conducted through three primary research divisions: Economic Policy Studies, Social and Political Studies, and Defense and Foreign Policy Studies. It also works through several specialized programs such as the Brady Program on Culture and Freedom, the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, the National Research Initiative (which sponsors research by university-based scholars), the AEI Press, and The American”
I shall have to investigate this organisation before going off
---
"The world needs anger. The world often continues to allow evil because it isn't angry enough.
- Father Bede Jarrett
(with thanks to Willie T)
---
"The world needs anger. The world often continues to allow evil because it isn't angry enough.
- Father Bede Jarrett
(with thanks to Willie T)
<br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/long-live-the-queen-ayaa_b_53498.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/long-live-the-queen-ayaa_b_53498.html</a><br />
<p>---<br>The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.<br />
So, why is it we are not enraged when effigies of what we hold important are destroyed as those things which they represent would be destroyed if given the chance? Do we hold our freedom of speech so high that we must also hold their freedom of speech as high, even if it offends us?
Or, do we just not believe in those symbols enough to protect them?
As the author states - "By knighting Salman Rushdie, the queen has honored the freedom of conscience and creativity cherished in the West, making her a symbol of the essence of our way of life." Is it not worth defending this freedom, if only in harshly worded communications?
Or, am I just typing so my fingers get exercise again?
---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
It is right and properr to read with a critical eye, is it not? Anf there was something to Pro Am about the article that set off warning tingles.
In other words the jury is out
*deliberate mis-spell
**semi function
---
I gazed at every mirror on the planet, not one gave back my reflection - Jorge Luis Borges
"So, why is it we are not enraged when effigies of what we hold important are destroyed as those things which they represent would be destroyed if given the chance? Do we hold our freedom of speech so high that we must also hold their freedom of speech as high, even if it offends us?"
Do I recognise the above a s Chomsky rephrased?
The point is valid DC and kinda deep this early in my day without the Kick-start of the triple latte'
---
I gazed at every mirror on the planet, not one gave back my reflection - Jorge Luis Borges
The Queen, person not symbol, won't be one on them. Britain, the people, are being softened up by the string pullers. It is never one string in isolation. Not safe for the prince to serve, oh my. The queen the object of ire, oh my. The fire is being stoked. Count the logs, see the flames rise higher, and stay tuned to further developments for Britains role in the "war on terror".
The Queen is bombing Afghanistan? The Canadian flag is stealing our tax dollars? The Bible is killing innocent families? The Canadian Constitution is not worth protecting?
"As if there's any surprise, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a fellow..."
Well, yes, it is a surprise, because the the link and my post clearly indicate Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a WOMAN.
"at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank that is overflowing with defenders of human rights and liberty, such as ... "
No, the opinion piece was carried by the Associated Press and International Herald Tribune, and picked up by several other sources as well. Your 'full list of offenders' clearly lists her as a champion of women's rights. Sounds like a bad person to me.
"These are all the same guys n gals that instigated and kicked off 9/11, which is now being used as an excuse to destroy what little freedom and liberty we have left."
I think you have AEI confused with 19 Saudi's and a guy named Osama.
But, enough blaming the messenger, let's get back to the message:
If you read her book, 'Infidel', you'll note Ayaan Hirsi Ali was the subject of the film in which a Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh was stabbed and nearly beheaded on the streets of Amsterdam. In the film he made starring her, she wrote words from the Quran on her body. It was a 10 minute film, and that was all she did in the film. That such holy words were written on a 'dirty female' was the justification for his murder and a Fatah against her calling for her immediate death. This is the kind of peoplewe want to protect? Someone who murders because of words?
So, who is it destroying our freedoms again? Why are we so eager to accept this affront to our values, at the risk of offending the values of others when it is they who are destroying our freedoms? Does her standing up for women's rights, and against Shaira law help us, or hurt us?
Does our silence at the burning of our flags and our Queen hurt us in the Muslim world because of our apparent (according to their values) weakness to defend our beliefs, or are we defending our beliefs by letting them burn our flags and effigies of The Queen? Ask yourself, given the fallout from the Danish cartoons; what would happen if we had a Prophet Muhammed and Quran weenie roast?
I know Afghanistan is your favourite subject, but it's not the subject here. The subject is: do our own values and the reluctance to protect them hurt us as a society?
---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.