Appeasing the Peaceful
The headlines continue without pause. “Cartoon anger unabated” reports Reuters on February 10. It all started when a Danish newspaper published some cartoon portraying Mohammad in a political bent. As Ann Coulter said, “The third showed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb, which I believe was an expression of post-industrial ennui in a secular – oops, no, wait: It was more of a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence.”
In response to these cartoons, many adherents to Islam rioted. The demonstrations have even led NATO troops to exchange fire with some armed protestors in Afghanistan after they attacked the NATO base.
What was the purpose of all the violence, attacking of embassies and bases, and burning of flags and effigies? From what I can tell by their slogans, they protest the mocking of the prophet and their beliefs. Basically no one is allowed to portray Mohammad in any form whatsoever, especially not in caricature. This idea is relatively new however. I again quote Ann Coulter, “The belief that Islam forbids portrayals of Muhammad is recently acquired. Back when Muslims created things, rather than blowing them up, they made paintings, frescoes, miniatures and prints of Muhammad. “
Whatever the case, the President calling Islam a noble religion twisted by some extremists seems flawed. The only non-extreme Muslims seem to be those who relax their religion to a state of secularism. All this hype, pain, exhibition, and death is caused by caricature. In contrast, how many Christians have killed because of a caricature of Jesus? How many Buddhists have rioted because of a negative portrayal of their religion? It really comes down to the fact that Islam is not inherently peaceful.
If you have to call a religion noble and peaceful in order to prevent adherents of that religion from killing and rioting, doesn't it necessarily negate the statement that it is noble or peaceful?
In response to these cartoons, many adherents to Islam rioted. The demonstrations have even led NATO troops to exchange fire with some armed protestors in Afghanistan after they attacked the NATO base.
What was the purpose of all the violence, attacking of embassies and bases, and burning of flags and effigies? From what I can tell by their slogans, they protest the mocking of the prophet and their beliefs. Basically no one is allowed to portray Mohammad in any form whatsoever, especially not in caricature. This idea is relatively new however. I again quote Ann Coulter, “The belief that Islam forbids portrayals of Muhammad is recently acquired. Back when Muslims created things, rather than blowing them up, they made paintings, frescoes, miniatures and prints of Muhammad. “
Whatever the case, the President calling Islam a noble religion twisted by some extremists seems flawed. The only non-extreme Muslims seem to be those who relax their religion to a state of secularism. All this hype, pain, exhibition, and death is caused by caricature. In contrast, how many Christians have killed because of a caricature of Jesus? How many Buddhists have rioted because of a negative portrayal of their religion? It really comes down to the fact that Islam is not inherently peaceful.
If you have to call a religion noble and peaceful in order to prevent adherents of that religion from killing and rioting, doesn't it necessarily negate the statement that it is noble or peaceful?
posted by Matt Pitchford at 15:51
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home