This is just a quick link to follow -- an "aside." These are links to interesting things that, for one reason or another, I didn't place into a full posting. Click the link to visit the full article. Go to the blog index for a regular listing of posts.
I noticed that major Jewish organization like the AJC were hopping mad at the omission of the Muhammad cartoon because they are such "staunch defenders" of academic and journalistic freedom. However, I don't recall their supporting the publication of Mearsheimer & Walt's book on the Israel lobby, and they don't seem too happy about the Aftonbladet's investigative "journalism" on organ trafficking in Israel, as icky as it was. Let's face it: most Zionist organizations are filled with mean-spirited bigots who don't have an ounce of respect for religion (unless it's Judaism) and are all-too eager to score a point against the "Islamofascists" by insulting the most revered Muslim.
Excuse me but there's a difference between publishing conspiratorial smear jobs of the sort that have victimized countless Jewish people in the past, ie essentially accusing Jews of "undue influence" and so forth, and which was published anyway - bigoted though it is; and bowing to pressure from religious groups which are impacting academic and human freedom to the point that Enlightenment values and Constitutional and human rights are endangered.
Morever I do not see violent reprisals for the publication of Mearscheimer/Walt. I don't see bloody riots and murders in the wake of the appalling Swedish newspaper article and I don't see any attempts in the UN to make criticism of Judaism or other religions "blasphemy" and therefore illegal. This would have a further dampening effect on the essential human right to speak freely and challenge religious shibboleths.
And, there is a vast difference between challenging religious shibboleths or even just reporting on them - for example by objectively reporting upon the cartoon incident - and smearing an entire people for stealing organs and plotting to take over the world. Note that Jews have been accused by Muslims and Christians - our offshoot religions - of doing this and worse for millenia and we have been murdered by the millions and forceably converted in the process.
And - had it not been for people sufficiently courageous to challenge the Church, for example, the Renaissance would never have blossomed and we'd still be living in the Dark Ages, bereft of scientific progress. We'd never have built the Hubble telescope and probably would continue to think the earth is flat.
I don't see why challenging or questioning certain tenets or history about other religions including Islam should be verbotten. In fact Judaism and Christianity have undergone and continue to undergo, internal challenges and reformations - some of them violent - most of them the result of argument and soul-searching in pursuit of truth and the most righteous means to approach man, planet and G*d.
In the process, the rights of women, gays, animals and the planet itself have come to be seen as valuable. People are permitted scientific inquiry. We are allowed to speak out even if what we say is offensive to some.
We no longer keep slaves. We no longer punish people for blasphemy. We don't practice blood sacrifice upon our altars or in the name of our G*d. We don't allow religious figures - alive or dead - to control our state or civil discourse.
We don't whip rape victims or pretend there are no homosexuals.
Your characterization of Zionists and other Jews, though, is definitely bigoted.
And, you convey the impression that it's ok to smear an entire people but simply to question "reverence" - or even report about it - is wrong.
Why? Why is reverence per se more desireable than treating people and animals well? Why is "reverence" better than reform?
Why is "reverence" more holy than permitting freedom of speech and expression or allowing scientific and historical investigation?
I'll add that we don't see defenders of "freedom" like socialists, "progressives", moveon.org, ism - islamofascist solidarity movement, international answer, the UN, "jewish" voice for peace, "jews" for racial and economic justice, the national council of churches, the ucc, call for Freedom of the Press for including the PICTURES of mohammed, that are the subject of the book.
Why don't we hear your buddies Daoud, DEMANDING FREEDOM OF THE PRESS?
Daoud, your hypocritical buddies supported "art" that debases Christian iconography (crucifix in urine), Madonna painted in elephant dung, but can't get worked up to treat Islam with equal disdain?
Daoud, you are a fake, phoney, fraud.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
I noticed that major Jewish organization like the AJC were hopping mad at the omission of the Muhammad cartoon because they are such "staunch defenders" of academic and journalistic freedom. However, I don't recall their supporting the publication of Mearsheimer & Walt's book on the Israel lobby, and they don't seem too happy about the Aftonbladet's investigative "journalism" on organ trafficking in Israel, as icky as it was. Let's face it: most Zionist organizations are filled with mean-spirited bigots who don't have an ounce of respect for religion (unless it's Judaism) and are all-too eager to score a point against the "Islamofascists" by insulting the most revered Muslim.
Excuse me but there's a difference between publishing conspiratorial smear jobs of the sort that have victimized countless Jewish people in the past, ie essentially accusing Jews of "undue influence" and so forth, and which was published anyway - bigoted though it is; and bowing to pressure from religious groups which are impacting academic and human freedom to the point that Enlightenment values and Constitutional and human rights are endangered.
Morever I do not see violent reprisals for the publication of Mearscheimer/Walt. I don't see bloody riots and murders in the wake of the appalling Swedish newspaper article and I don't see any attempts in the UN to make criticism of Judaism or other religions "blasphemy" and therefore illegal. This would have a further dampening effect on the essential human right to speak freely and challenge religious shibboleths.
And, there is a vast difference between challenging religious shibboleths or even just reporting on them - for example by objectively reporting upon the cartoon incident - and smearing an entire people for stealing organs and plotting to take over the world. Note that Jews have been accused by Muslims and Christians - our offshoot religions - of doing this and worse for millenia and we have been murdered by the millions and forceably converted in the process.
And - had it not been for people sufficiently courageous to challenge the Church, for example, the Renaissance would never have blossomed and we'd still be living in the Dark Ages, bereft of scientific progress. We'd never have built the Hubble telescope and probably would continue to think the earth is flat.
I don't see why challenging or questioning certain tenets or history about other religions including Islam should be verbotten. In fact Judaism and Christianity have undergone and continue to undergo, internal challenges and reformations - some of them violent - most of them the result of argument and soul-searching in pursuit of truth and the most righteous means to approach man, planet and G*d.
In the process, the rights of women, gays, animals and the planet itself have come to be seen as valuable. People are permitted scientific inquiry. We are allowed to speak out even if what we say is offensive to some.
We no longer keep slaves. We no longer punish people for blasphemy. We don't practice blood sacrifice upon our altars or in the name of our G*d. We don't allow religious figures - alive or dead - to control our state or civil discourse.
We don't whip rape victims or pretend there are no homosexuals.
Your characterization of Zionists and other Jews, though, is definitely bigoted.
And, you convey the impression that it's ok to smear an entire people but simply to question "reverence" - or even report about it - is wrong.
Why? Why is reverence per se more desireable than treating people and animals well? Why is "reverence" better than reform?
Why is "reverence" more holy than permitting freedom of speech and expression or allowing scientific and historical investigation?
GREAT post Sophia.
I'll add that we don't see defenders of "freedom" like socialists, "progressives", moveon.org, ism - islamofascist solidarity movement, international answer, the UN, "jewish" voice for peace, "jews" for racial and economic justice, the national council of churches, the ucc, call for Freedom of the Press for including the PICTURES of mohammed, that are the subject of the book.
Why don't we hear your buddies Daoud, DEMANDING FREEDOM OF THE PRESS?
Daoud, your hypocritical buddies supported "art" that debases Christian iconography (crucifix in urine), Madonna painted in elephant dung, but can't get worked up to treat Islam with equal disdain?
Daoud, you are a fake, phoney, fraud.