"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in
oups.com:

> Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>> I think it would be nice to stand up to religious bigotry. There
>> are any number of ways it can be done.
>
> The pocketbook method is often a good way. Boycotting or
> supporting a group or cause or business via the bottom line is
> often very, very effective...tyrants and despots know this and so
> do us informed consumers :-)

The pocketbook approach works if you have leverage which you don't with
a lot of Muslim countries because you have alienated them. What are
you going to do? Tell them you won't buy things that you're already
not buying?

Desperate much?

--

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why
the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Dom Helder Camara

Arri London wrote:
>
> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
(Glitter Ninja) wrote in
:
>>
>>
>>>sf > writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Danish caricature depicted Mohamed (not just "any muslim") as
>>>>a terrorist and that's what made them so mad. In any case, I
>>>>think they are being hypocritical because they put caricatures of
>>>>Jews and Christians in their newspspers daily.
>>
>>But not caricatures of Moses or Jesus. They hold Moses and Jesus to be
>>Prophets equal to Muhammad, although they hold that Muhammad being the
>>most recent is the more accurate.
>
>
> YOu must never have lived in a Muslim neighbourhood. They do indeed
> caricature Moses and Jesus. And they do not consider Moses and Jesus as
> prophets equal to Muhammed.
>
>>>I just read a post on LiveJournal (I can link it if you want) by a
>>>gentleman who spent some years in the Middle East. He said that a
>>>Muslim traditionalist will say that other religions can take
>>>criticism because that religion is false.
>>
>>Not true. Islam recognizes Christianity and Judaism as divinely
>>revealed religions. However, they do believe that the revelations have
>>been corrupted and it is the corruption that they attack.
>
>
> Islam recognises Islam as being superior to Christianity and Judaism.
> Muslims believe that Jesus isn't God; that really is blasphemy to a
> Christian.
>


As I understand it, islam recognizes Christians and Jews as "People of
the Book", but they consider Christianity and Judaism as apostate
religions. That's why they hate Christians and Jews more than other
"infidel" religions.

I wonder what Mohammed would think of his followers making these
pictures into "graven images" -- the muslim leaders are worshiping
Mohammed over Allah by making such a fuss about the cartoons.

Perhaps most muslims are peaceful people who just wanna be left alone to
live their lives, but islam is not a peaceful religion. (Most muslims
are not islamist radicals.) Christianity went thru a phase like that
about 1000 years ago, but we pretty much grew out of it.

Best regards,
Bob

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 00:54:06 GMT, (Curly
Sue) wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 17:33:10 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:28:50 +0000 (UTC), (Glitter
>>Ninja) wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Smith > writes:
>>>>Curly Sue wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
>>>>> they were doing and where this would lead.
>>>
>>>>How could they know that it would lead to violent demonstrations and acts
>>>>of arson?
>>>
>>> Don't be disingenuous. The cartoons (there are 13 of them) are almost
>>>entirely negative and were the product of months of newspapers provoking
>>>and criticising the Muslims in their country. They did it to
>>>antagonize, end of story.
>>
>>Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit.
>>
>>The paper, with a circulation of about 150k, by the way, is a liberal
>>one.
>
>Specifically, liberal-independent-right-wing.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten

If so, I stand corrected. I am finding conflicting online reports on
its stance. That would make me suspicious of the paper to some extent,
but what evidence do you have that the commission of the cartoons was
of a deliberately provocative nature. Take a look around you on the
Internet, which reaches more than the circulation of 150 thousand as
the Denmark paper....do you REALLY think that these cartoons are of
some level of greater evil that what surrounds us daily?

And think...even if it *were* deliberately provocative, as KKK or
White supremacists marching in African American areas or neo-nazis
marching in Jewish areas, what justification is there from the kinds
of behavior seen in Syria, Gaza & Lebanon? Is this merited? Is this
not it its own way provocative in a very deliberate way?

I do not care how hateful the cartoons may be though of by some. Any
excuse is used by fundies on both sides of the aisle to control the
media. The fundie, right wing American Family Association just made
sure that a show (Book of Daniel) was pulled from the NBC lineup
though it's organized protestations. I do not like those fundies
trying to censor what I see, either. Do you want more examples of
religion getting it knickers in a knot and trying to control what they
do not like, even among those who do not belong to their religion?
Look at the BS about the term "Happy Holidays," just a month
ago....look at what has come up in discussions around here when people
have been accused of being bigoted for not taking someone else's
religious writing as the true word of their god.

snip
>These guys can blah-blah all they want about their high-minded ideals
>and who they didn't want to offend, but there's no doubt that they
>were looking for a rumble. So they got it.
>

I do not care what the newspaper published. I am a believer is freedom
of the expression, even if it is espouses opinions I find repulsive.
Once again, I offer the televised antics of Pat Robertson as a counter
example.

Riots and burning of embassies in reaction to these cartoons is
idiotic, bigoted and untenable by any account. What happened Denmark
was not incitement to riot, but the reaction to it has been insane
over-reaction by fundamentalist bigots.

Boron

In article >, says...
> Christianity went thru a phase like that
> about 1000 years ago, but we pretty much grew out of it.
>
> Best regards,
> Bob
>
>

Which pretty much sums it up. Little or no difference to the sense of humour
displayed by frothing at the mouth fundamentalist X-tians and probably a bit
more forgiving than the Spanish Inquisition.

Think of those retards blowing up abortion clinics and shooting doctors 'to
save lives'.

Too much Religion is bad for the soul. -P.

--
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com

Peter Huebner wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>> Christianity went thru a phase like that about 1000 years ago, but
>> we pretty much grew out of it.
>>
>> Best regards, Bob
>>
>>
>
>
> Which pretty much sums it up. Little or no difference to the sense of
> humour displayed by frothing at the mouth fundamentalist X-tians and
> probably a bit more forgiving than the Spanish Inquisition.

[snip]

I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition...


Bob

zxcvbob > wrote in :


>
> [snip]
>
> I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition...
>
>
> Bob


Don't get me started...

the way i see it is that WE---U.S. and other
friendly nations---are CIVILIZED people
and the rioters/protestors aren't....and they
never will be.
maybe we should do the same to them. the
next time they insult us or kidnap innocent
people we should just let some heads roll.

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:09:09 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 00:54:06 GMT, (Curly
>Sue) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 17:33:10 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:28:50 +0000 (UTC), (Glitter
>>>Ninja) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dave Smith > writes:
>>>>>Curly Sue wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
>>>>>> they were doing and where this would lead.
>>>>
>>>>>How could they know that it would lead to violent demonstrations and acts
>>>>>of arson?
>>>>
>>>> Don't be disingenuous. The cartoons (there are 13 of them) are almost
>>>>entirely negative and were the product of months of newspapers provoking
>>>>and criticising the Muslims in their country. They did it to
>>>>antagonize, end of story.
>>>
>>>Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit.
>>>
>>>The paper, with a circulation of about 150k, by the way, is a liberal
>>>one.
>>
>>Specifically, liberal-independent-right-wing.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten
>
>If so, I stand corrected. I am finding conflicting online reports on
>its stance. That would make me suspicious of the paper to some extent,
>but what evidence do you have that the commission of the cartoons was
>of a deliberately provocative nature.

There is no other explanation for waving a red flag at a bull other
than to provoke.

>Take a look around you on the
>Internet, which reaches more than the circulation of 150 thousand as
>the Denmark paper....do you REALLY think that these cartoons are of
>some level of greater evil that what surrounds us daily?

I never said anything of the sort.

>And think...even if it *were* deliberately provocative, as KKK or
>White supremacists marching in African American areas or neo-nazis
>marching in Jewish areas, what justification is there from the kinds
>of behavior seen in Syria, Gaza & Lebanon? Is this merited? Is this
>not it its own way provocative in a very deliberate way?

The violence is not justified, but it's reactive not provocative.

>I do not care how hateful the cartoons may be though of by some. Any
>excuse is used by fundies on both sides of the aisle to control the
>media. The fundie, right wing American Family Association just made
>sure that a show (Book of Daniel) was pulled from the NBC lineup
>though it's organized protestations. I do not like those fundies
>trying to censor what I see, either. Do you want more examples of
>religion getting it knickers in a knot and trying to control what they
>do not like, even among those who do not belong to their religion?

There is as much of that from the secular "fundies," who get their
knickers in a knot and don't want to hear any mention of peoples'
religious beliefs.

>Look at the BS about the term "Happy Holidays," just a month
>ago...look at what has come up in discussions around here when people
>have been accused of being bigoted for not taking someone else's
>religious writing as the true word of their god.

And there is plenty of the secular fundies making ugly comments about
religious beliefs.

>snip
>>These guys can blah-blah all they want about their high-minded ideals
>>and who they didn't want to offend, but there's no doubt that they
>>were looking for a rumble. So they got it.
>>
>
>I do not care what the newspaper published. I am a believer is freedom
>of the expression, even if it is espouses opinions I find repulsive.
>Once again, I offer the televised antics of Pat Robertson as a counter
>example.

Well, other people don't have the same beliefs as we do, and the
newspaper knew it. In fact that is why they commissioned the
cartoons. Pulling the strings of angry zealots makes that newspaper
culpable to some degree in the subsequent destruction.

>Riots and burning of embassies in reaction to these cartoons is
>idiotic, bigoted and untenable by any account. What happened Denmark
>was not incitement to riot, but the reaction to it has been insane
>over-reaction by fundamentalist bigots.
>
>Boron

It seems that you don't see the cartoons as "bigoted," only the
response.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> > Remember the Danish resistance to the Nazi occupiers during WWII. They
> managed to evacuate a goodly number of Jews to safe haven (at great
> risk to themselves). IIRC when the Nazis stipulated that Jews must
> wear a yellow Star of David the Danish royal family as a sign of
> solidarity donned yellow Stars too...

Sadly, not true about the Danish King and the Star of David...
http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/denmark.htm

Lisa Ann

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 06:53:40 GMT, (Curly
Sue) wrote:


>
>It seems that you don't see the cartoons as "bigoted," only the
>response.
>

It does not matter if they were or were not "bigoted." You have, once
again, missed the point completely.

And what is a "secular fundie"? Did you make that up all by yourself?

Boron

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Huebner wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>
>>> Christianity went thru a phase like that about 1000 years ago, but
>>> we pretty much grew out of it.
>>>
>>> Best regards, Bob
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Which pretty much sums it up. Little or no difference to the sense of
>> humour displayed by frothing at the mouth fundamentalist X-tians and
>> probably a bit more forgiving than the Spanish Inquisition.
>
> [snip]
>
> I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition...

NO-ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition......

zxcvbob wrote:

>
> > Which pretty much sums it up. Little or no difference to the sense of
> > humour displayed by frothing at the mouth fundamentalist X-tians and
> > probably a bit more forgiving than the Spanish Inquisition.
>
> [snip]
>
> I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition...
>

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
:-)

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 07:51:37 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 06:53:40 GMT, (Curly
>Sue) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>It seems that you don't see the cartoons as "bigoted," only the
>>response.
>>
>
>It does not matter if they were or were not "bigoted." You have, once
>again, missed the point completely.
>
>And what is a "secular fundie"? Did you make that up all by yourself?
>
>Boron


Ah...I have searched the term "secular fundie." Google sees it 77
times. It is used by right wing extremist religious web
sites...infrequently, at that, but that is its source. Did you pick it
up from one of those? Are you trying to express some sort of bigoted
statement about those who are do not believe about religion the way
you do?

Boron

zxcvbob > wrote in
:

> As I understand it, islam recognizes Christians and Jews as
> "People of the Book", but they consider Christianity and Judaism
> as apostate religions. That's why they hate Christians and Jews
> more than other "infidel" religions.

They hardly consider Christianity and Judaism as apostate religions.
In Islam, Christianity and Judaism are viewed as revealed religions
in the same way as Islam was revealed, by the message being given by
a Prophet. What they consider to be serious flaws in Christianity re
the lack of Shar'iah and the doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation
which they believe compromise divine unity. Those, they hold, are
later human interpolations and THAT is what they consider apostate.

Now, as in all religions, some people hold views divergent from the
fundamental message of love thy neighbour (which is common to
Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Their interpretation is heavily
coloured by their prejudices and their political views, be they
Christian or Muslim. Most of what we see has little to do with Islam
as a revealed religion and more to do with a political reaction to
various stimuli, such as the recent refusal by western nations to
recognize Hamas after they had cornered the Palestinians into the
democratic process with promises of validation.

Hamas was elected January 25 and the current wave of popular protests
against the caricatures began on January 27. Previous protests
(which began in October 2005) had been limited to diplomatic action.
So far, I haven't seen anyone correlate these two events...draw your
own conclusions, but in my view, it's a case of "you **** with us, we
**** with you".

Don't tell me that isn't hypocrisy of the worst sort. If Bush and
Blair didn't want Hamas elected, they should have stipulated that
they would only accept a predetermined outcome (the "do as you're
told" school of democratic thought) and appeared clearly as the lying
scum they now have revealed themselves to be. At least Muslims speak
frankly.

Now, before you reply, consider that, as a Marxist, I do not in any
way favour the spread of organized religion, but I do recognize that
religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, what have you) gives hope to
those who need it most, especially those living in dire
circumstances.

--

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why
the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Dom Helder Camara

Curly Sue wrote:

>
> There is no other explanation for waving a red flag at a bull other
> than to provoke.
>

That may be, but it was not the Danish people or the Danish government that waved
a proverbial red flag. It was the action of the editors of a newspaper. The
government's big sin is that the prime minister refused to have a meeting with
some Islamic embassadors to discuss it because he thought that it was an issue of
free speech.

> >And think...even if it *were* deliberately provocative, as KKK or
> >White supremacists marching in African American areas or neo-nazis
> >marching in Jewish areas, what justification is there from the kinds
> >of behavior seen in Syria, Gaza & Lebanon? Is this merited? Is this
> >not it its own way provocative in a very deliberate way?
>
> The violence is not justified, but it's reactive not provocative.

We like to think not, but when you consider first major attack on an embassy was
in Syria, where people live under an iron fist, and things like this don't happen
expect with the consent of the government, and that the second one was in Lebanon,
which has been heavily influenced by Syria, and that most of the culprits who were
arrested for their involvement were Syrians.

> There is as much of that from the secular "fundies," who get their
> knickers in a knot and don't want to hear any mention of peoples'
> religious beliefs.

I don't know about the others but I can handle hearing about them. I just don't
want my life governed by their various mythologies. I don't want to have to choose
one or the other.


> Well, other people don't have the same beliefs as we do, and the
> newspaper knew it. In fact that is why they commissioned the
> cartoons. Pulling the strings of angry zealots makes that newspaper
> culpable to some degree in the subsequent destruction.

Sorry, but I don't buy that. It just helps to expose them for what they are.

>
> It seems that you don't see the cartoons as "bigoted," only the
> response.

It is interesting that they tend to present an image of behaviour strikingly
similar to that which was the response. Perhaps the truth hurts.

Dave Smith wrote:
> zxcvbob wrote:
>
>
>>>Which pretty much sums it up. Little or no difference to the sense of
>>>humour displayed by frothing at the mouth fundamentalist X-tians and
>>>probably a bit more forgiving than the Spanish Inquisition.
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition...
>>
>
>
> Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
> :-)
>
>
>

I was ignoring this thread, but now I'm glad I read it. Never want to
miss out on a Python reference.

--

saerah

http://anisaerah.blogspot.com/

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a
disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
-Baruch Spinoza

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear
and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There
is another theory which states that this has already happened."
-Douglas Adams

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Curly Sue wrote:
>
>>
>> There is no other explanation for waving a red flag at a bull other
>> than to provoke.
>>
>
> That may be, but it was not the Danish people or the Danish government
> that waved
> a proverbial red flag. It was the action of the editors of a newspaper.
> The
> government's big sin is that the prime minister refused to have a meeting
> with
> some Islamic embassadors to discuss it because he thought that it was an
> issue of
> free speech.
>

What I find particularly troubling is that when the original cartoons were
circulated in the Muslim world, some persons unknown added additional and
even more offensive cartoons that they created, attributing them to the
Danish newspaper, to further inflame the population. While much more
blatant, this is akin to the continual program of disinformation from the
Bush administration, with the willing help of Fox News and other servile
"news" outlets, to whip up public support for the war and their other
policies.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

Peter Aitken wrote:

>
> > That may be, but it was not the Danish people or the Danish government
> > that waved
> > a proverbial red flag. It was the action of the editors of a newspaper.
> > The
> > government's big sin is that the prime minister refused to have a meeting
> > with
> > some Islamic embassadors to discuss it because he thought that it was an
> > issue of
> > free speech.
> >
>
> What I find particularly troubling is that when the original cartoons were
> circulated in the Muslim world, some persons unknown added additional and
> even more offensive cartoons that they created, attributing them to the
> Danish newspaper, to further inflame the population. While much more
> blatant, this is akin to the continual program of disinformation from the
> Bush administration, with the willing help of Fox News and other servile
> "news" outlets, to whip up public support for the war and their other
> policies.
>

It would certainly be ironic that someone in the middle east, and presumably
Moslem, would create even more offensive cartoons than the originals. One would
expect that to be a greater sin than drawing or publishing the originals.

zxcvbob wrote:
> Peter Huebner wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >
> >> Christianity went thru a phase like that about 1000 years ago, but
> >> we pretty much grew out of it.
> >>
> >> Best regards, Bob
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Which pretty much sums it up. Little or no difference to the sense of
> > humour displayed by frothing at the mouth fundamentalist X-tians and
> > probably a bit more forgiving than the Spanish Inquisition.
>
> [snip]
>
> I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition...
>
>
> Bob

For heaven's sake, NOONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!

maxine in ri

Boron Elgar wrote:

>>And what is a "secular fundie"? Did you make that up all by yourself?
>>
>>Boron
>
>
>
> Ah...I have searched the term "secular fundie." Google sees it 77
> times. It is used by right wing extremist religious web
> sites...infrequently, at that, but that is its source. Did you pick it
> up from one of those? Are you trying to express some sort of bigoted
> statement about those who are do not believe about religion the way
> you do?
>
> Boron


Try searching for "Secular fundamentalism" instead. You used "fundie"
in a previous post and I believe Sue just picked up on it and tried to
use your own words so you would understand them. HTH :-)

Best regards,
Bob

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>>>And what is a "secular fundie"? Did you make that up all by yourself?
>>>
>>>Boron
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah...I have searched the term "secular fundie." Google sees it 77
>> times. It is used by right wing extremist religious web
>> sites...infrequently, at that, but that is its source. Did you pick it
>> up from one of those? Are you trying to express some sort of bigoted
>> statement about those who are do not believe about religion the way
>> you do?
>>
>> Boron
>
>
> Try searching for "Secular fundamentalism" instead. You used "fundie" in
> a previous post and I believe Sue just picked up on it and tried to use
> your own words so you would understand them. HTH :-)
>
> Best regards,
> Bob

This whole "secular fundamentalism" notion is yet another feeble-minded
attempt of the religious right to try to place reason and knowledge on the
same level as their bizarre superstitious beliefs. It's been tried before,
in court cases that attempt to define secularism as a religion that should
be subject to the same constitutional restrictions as traditional religions.
It would be bad joke if so many nitwits did not take it seriously.


--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:03:07 -0600, zxcvbob >
wrote:

>Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>>>And what is a "secular fundie"? Did you make that up all by yourself?
>>>
>>>Boron
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah...I have searched the term "secular fundie." Google sees it 77
>> times. It is used by right wing extremist religious web
>> sites...infrequently, at that, but that is its source. Did you pick it
>> up from one of those? Are you trying to express some sort of bigoted
>> statement about those who are do not believe about religion the way
>> you do?
>>
>> Boron
>
>
>Try searching for "Secular fundamentalism" instead. You used "fundie"
>in a previous post and I believe Sue just picked up on it and tried to
>use your own words so you would understand them. HTH :-)
>
>Best regards,
>Bob

"Fundie" is not a term that is confusing or misunderstood. The term
"fundamentalism" is well known, well defined and commonly understood.
Since the definition of "fundamentalism" mentions an opposition to
secularism, that would still make the term one of contradiction,
rather than substance.


Boron

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 17:16:33 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:

>"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
>> Boron Elgar wrote:
>>
>>>>And what is a "secular fundie"? Did you make that up all by yourself?
>>>>
>>>>Boron
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah...I have searched the term "secular fundie." Google sees it 77
>>> times. It is used by right wing extremist religious web
>>> sites...infrequently, at that, but that is its source. Did you pick it
>>> up from one of those? Are you trying to express some sort of bigoted
>>> statement about those who are do not believe about religion the way
>>> you do?
>>>
>>> Boron
>>
>>
>> Try searching for "Secular fundamentalism" instead. You used "fundie" in
>> a previous post and I believe Sue just picked up on it and tried to use
>> your own words so you would understand them. HTH :-)
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Bob
>
>This whole "secular fundamentalism" notion is yet another feeble-minded
>attempt of the religious right to try to place reason and knowledge on the
>same level as their bizarre superstitious beliefs. It's been tried before,
>in court cases that attempt to define secularism as a religion that should
>be subject to the same constitutional restrictions as traditional religions.
>It would be bad joke if so many nitwits did not take it seriously.


Vraiment.

Boron

Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:03:07 -0600, zxcvbob >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Boron Elgar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>And what is a "secular fundie"? Did you make that up all by yourself?
>>>>
>>>>Boron
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Ah...I have searched the term "secular fundie." Google sees it 77
>>>times. It is used by right wing extremist religious web
>>>sites...infrequently, at that, but that is its source. Did you pick it
>>>up from one of those? Are you trying to express some sort of bigoted
>>>statement about those who are do not believe about religion the way
>>>you do?
>>>
>>>Boron
>>
>>
>>Try searching for "Secular fundamentalism" instead. You used "fundie"
>>in a previous post and I believe Sue just picked up on it and tried to
>>use your own words so you would understand them. HTH :-)
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Bob
>
>
> "Fundie" is not a term that is confusing or misunderstood. The term
> "fundamentalism" is well known, well defined and commonly understood.
> Since the definition of "fundamentalism" mentions an opposition to
> secularism, that would still make the term one of contradiction,
> rather than substance.
>
>
> Boron


"Fundamentalism" is not well defined nor understood. Do a google search
on "define: fundamentalism" (without the quotation marks) and you will
see over a dozen widely conflicting definitions.

Best regards,
Bob

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:57:41 -0600, zxcvbob >
wrote:

>Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:03:07 -0600, zxcvbob >

>>
>> "Fundie" is not a term that is confusing or misunderstood. The term
>> "fundamentalism" is well known, well defined and commonly understood.
>> Since the definition of "fundamentalism" mentions an opposition to
>> secularism, that would still make the term one of contradiction,
>> rather than substance.
>>
>>
>> Boron
>
>
>"Fundamentalism" is not well defined nor understood. Do a google search
>on "define: fundamentalism" (without the quotation marks) and you will
>see over a dozen widely conflicting definitions.
>
>Best regards,
>Bob

Fundamentalism has common and similar entries in standard dictionaries
and encyclopedias. No need to go to blogs for redefinitions based on
claptrap.


Boron

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:03:07 -0600, zxcvbob >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Boron Elgar wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>And what is a "secular fundie"? Did you make that up all by yourself?
>>>>>
>>>>>Boron
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ah...I have searched the term "secular fundie." Google sees it 77
>>>>times. It is used by right wing extremist religious web
>>>>sites...infrequently, at that, but that is its source. Did you pick it
>>>>up from one of those? Are you trying to express some sort of bigoted
>>>>statement about those who are do not believe about religion the way
>>>>you do?
>>>>
>>>>Boron
>>>
>>>
>>>Try searching for "Secular fundamentalism" instead. You used "fundie" in
>>>a previous post and I believe Sue just picked up on it and tried to use
>>>your own words so you would understand them. HTH :-)
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>Bob
>>
>>
>> "Fundie" is not a term that is confusing or misunderstood. The term
>> "fundamentalism" is well known, well defined and commonly understood.
>> Since the definition of "fundamentalism" mentions an opposition to
>> secularism, that would still make the term one of contradiction,
>> rather than substance.
>>
>>
>> Boron
>
>
> "Fundamentalism" is not well defined nor understood. Do a google search
> on "define: fundamentalism" (without the quotation marks) and you will see
> over a dozen widely conflicting definitions.
>
> Best regards,
> Bob

Google? Oh please.Useful to be sure but hardly the way to find valid
information. It will turn up everything from a well researched and perfectly
valid page at a university to the foam-at-the-mouth rantings of some
religious nutcase.


--
Peter Aitken

Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:57:41 -0600, zxcvbob >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Boron Elgar wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:03:07 -0600, zxcvbob >
>
>
>>>"Fundie" is not a term that is confusing or misunderstood. The term
>>>"fundamentalism" is well known, well defined and commonly understood.
>>>Since the definition of "fundamentalism" mentions an opposition to
>>>secularism, that would still make the term one of contradiction,
>>>rather than substance.
>>>
>>>
>>>Boron
>>
>>
>>"Fundamentalism" is not well defined nor understood. Do a google search
>>on "define: fundamentalism" (without the quotation marks) and you will
>>see over a dozen widely conflicting definitions.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Bob
>
>
> Fundamentalism has common and similar entries in standard dictionaries
> and encyclopedias. No need to go to blogs for redefinitions based on
> claptrap.
>
>
> Boron


How about this one? (first actual dictionary I checked, and I didn't
look any further): http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fundamentalism

There's enough difference between the 1st and 2nd definition to cause
misunderstandings.

Bob

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in news:vvMFf.10718
:

> It will turn up everything from a well researched and perfectly
> valid page at a university to the foam-at-the-mouth rantings of some
> religious nutcase.

Which is fairly close to the level of reality of this thread...

--

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why
the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Dom Helder Camara

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:33:14 -0600, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

>"Peter Aitken" > wrote in news:vvMFf.10718
:
>
>> It will turn up everything from a well researched and perfectly
>> valid page at a university to the foam-at-the-mouth rantings of some
>> religious nutcase.
>
>Which is fairly close to the level of reality of this thread...


The reality is what you see below.. remember well, this was .triggered
by a newspaper printing cartoons - not a government printing them, not
a political party doing it, not an official representative of anything
whatsoever, but some small circulation newspaper in some small
country...and look at what the result is - death and destruction.

I do not care what the content of the cartoons were. I do not care
what the purpose behind them was. The actions of the entire world
cannot be controlled, compromised or based upon the beliefs of some
subset of a religion. To think so and allow it sway is absurd,
barbaric and unconscionable.

I'd also like to thank George W. Bush as an enabler in all of this,
becuase were we not in Iraq, the world woudl be a safer place for us
all.


Muslim cartoon fury claims lives
At least five people have been killed in Afghanistan as protests
against European cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad swept across
the country.
Two people died when protesters turned on the US airbase at Bagram -
although the US has had no involvement with the images, which
originated in Denmark.

Meanwhile in Somalia, a teenage boy died after protesters attacked
police.

Iran announced it was halting trade with Denmark, as protesters pelted
the Danish embassy with petrol bombs.

Police fired tear gas in a bid to keep back hundreds of angry
demonstrators, some of whom attempted to scale the wall into the
embassy compound. Earlier, the Austrian embassy in Tehran came under
attack.

The violence follows attacks on Danish embassies in Syria and Lebanon
over the weekend. The cartoons were first published in a Danish
newspaper.

Tensions continue to escalate around the world:


Norway demands compensation from Syria after its embassy in Damascus
was set on fire on Saturday


The Turkish and Spanish prime ministers make a joint plea for respect
and calm in an article in the International Herald Tribune

In Indonesia, protesters target the Danish and US consulates in
Surabaya, the country's second largest city. Protests are also held in
the capital, Jakarta

Riot police in the Indian capital, Delhi, fire tear gas and water
cannons to disperse hundreds of student protesters

Shops and businesses across Indian-administered Kashmir close after a
general strike is called in protest at the drawings

In Thailand, protesters shout "God is great" and stamp on Denmark's
flag outside the country's embassy in Bangkok, the Associated Press
news agency reports

There are protests again outside the European Union offices in Gaza,
following demonstrations there last week.
'Test our feelings'

Hundreds of people took part in the morning demonstration in
Afghanistan's Laghman province, in a second day of protests in the
city.

Three people died when police fired on protesters after a police
station came under attack, a government spokesman said.

Demonstrators shouted "death to Denmark" and "death to France". They
called for the expulsion of diplomats and soldiers, who were sent by
both countries as part of international efforts in the US-led "war on
terror".


CARTOON ROW
30 Sept 2005: Danish paper publishes cartoons
20 Oct: Muslim ambassadors complain to Danish PM
10 Jan 2006: Norwegian publication reprints cartoons
26 Jan: Saudi Arabia recalls its ambassador
30 Jan: Gunmen raid EU's Gaza office demanding apology
31 Jan: Danish paper apologises
1 Feb: Papers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain reprint cartoons
4 Feb: Syrians attack Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus
5 Feb: Protesters sack Danish embassy in Beirut


"They want to test our feelings," protester Mawli Abdul Qahar Abu
Israra told the BBC.

"They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to
them and to their newspapers," he said.

In Bagram district, a peaceful protest in the morning turned violent
when around 300 "bandits and gangsters" tried to enter the US base,
local police chief Mawlana Sayed Khel told the BBC.

A shoot-out with police left two protesters dead, and six police
officers injured, he said.

Elsewhere, hundreds protested in Kandahar, Mazar-e-Sharif and the
north-eastern province of Takhar. Some 200 demonstrators gathered
outside the Danish embassy in the capital, Kabul.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai reiterated his condemnation of the
cartoons and called on western nations to take "a strong measure" to
ensure such cartoons do not appear again. "It's not good for anybody,"
he told CNN.

'Defending freedoms'

In the autonomous Somali region of Puntland, demonstrators marched
through the port city of Bosaso, shouting anti-Western slogans and
converging on the UN and international aid agency buildings.

A 14-year-old boy was reportedly trampled underfoot as police fired
into the air to try and disperse an increasingly angry crowd.

Peaceful protests were held in several other Somali towns.

The cartoons first appeared in a Danish newspaper in September and
caused outrage among Muslims, who consider any images of Muhammad
offensive.

One of the cartoons shows Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban.

Newspapers across Europe republished the pictures last week, saying
they were defending freedom of expression.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...ia/4684652.stm

Published: 2006/02/06 18:59:21 GMT

© BBC MMVI

Boron Elgar > wrote in
:

> remember well, this was
> .triggered by a newspaper printing cartoons - not a government
> printing them, not a political party doing it, not an official
> representative of anything whatsoever, but some small circulation
> newspaper in some small country...and look at what the result is -
> death and destruction.

I am very much aware of that, and at least one Middle Eastern
government has apologized. Many governments were pursuing a diplomatic
solution since the publication which obviously Denmark ignored.
Perhaps this could have been resolved amicably much earlier and none of
this would have come to pass.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/...06toon.leb.php

> I do not care what the content of the cartoons were. I do not care
> what the purpose behind them was. The actions of the entire world
> cannot be controlled, compromised or based upon the beliefs of
> some subset of a religion. To think so and allow it sway is
> absurd, barbaric and unconscionable.

Tell that to Bush. Obviously, that's his (or his advisors') agenda.

--

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why
the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Dom Helder Camara

Michel Boucher wrote:

>
>
> I am very much aware of that, and at least one Middle Eastern
> government has apologized. Many governments were pursuing a diplomatic
> solution since the publication which obviously Denmark ignored.
> Perhaps this could have been resolved amicably much earlier and none of
> this would have come to pass.

There is more than a little irony in all this. I can understand that
Moslems would be offended by an image of the prophet with a bomb, since it
would characterize them as being violent. But to me, to react to the
offensiveness of the portrayal by starting riots that have lead to murder
and arson??? I have to say that it doesn't do much for their argument that
it is unfair to portray them as being violent.

On 2006-02-06, Boron Elgar > wrote:

> The reality is what you see below.. remember well, this was .triggered
> by a newspaper printing cartoons >
>
> CARTOON ROW
> 30 Sept 2005: Danish paper publishes cartoons

I doubt it. Look at the timeline. It sure as Hell didn't take the
street crazies 3 months to work up a froth. I have no doubt this is a
concerted effort by known terrorists to work extremist muslims into
frenzy to get the World's attention one more time. I believe the
purpose is to get the targets of all this mob hysteria to lose it and
over react and make Muslims look like the victims of anti Islam
persecution, thereby garnering more sympathy for the terrorist cause.
So far, it appears to be working just fine.

nb

nb

Michel Boucher wrote:

> Boron Elgar > wrote in
> :
>
> > remember well, this was
> > .triggered by a newspaper printing cartoons - not a government
> > printing them, not a political party doing it, not an official
> > representative of anything whatsoever, but some small circulation
> > newspaper in some small country...and look at what the result is -
> > death and destruction.
>
> I am very much aware of that, and at least one Middle Eastern
> government has apologized. Many governments were pursuing a diplomatic
> solution since the publication which obviously Denmark ignored.
> Perhaps this could have been resolved amicably much earlier and none of
> this would have come to pass.
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/...06toon.leb.php
>
> > I do not care what the content of the cartoons were. I do not care
> > what the purpose behind them was. The actions of the entire world
> > cannot be controlled, compromised or based upon the beliefs of
> > some subset of a religion. To think so and allow it sway is
> > absurd, barbaric and unconscionable.
>
> Tell that to Bush. Obviously, that's his (or his advisors') agenda.


Which has nothing to do with Boron's point...it's simply a cheap shot
on your part.

Your constant anti - US frothing at the mouth is getting *increasingly*
tiresome.

--
Best
Greg

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I am very much aware of that, and at least one Middle Eastern
>> government has apologized. Many governments were pursuing a diplomatic
>> solution since the publication which obviously Denmark ignored.
>> Perhaps this could have been resolved amicably much earlier and none of
>> this would have come to pass.
>
> There is more than a little irony in all this. I can understand that
> Moslems would be offended by an image of the prophet with a bomb, since it
> would characterize them as being violent. But to me, to react to the
> offensiveness of the portrayal by starting riots that have lead to murder
> and arson??? I have to say that it doesn't do much for their argument that
> it is unfair to portray them as being violent.
>
>

Right to the point!


--
Peter Aitken

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>> Boron Elgar > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > remember well, this was
>> > .triggered by a newspaper printing cartoons - not a government
>> > printing them, not a political party doing it, not an official
>> > representative of anything whatsoever, but some small circulation
>> > newspaper in some small country...and look at what the result is -
>> > death and destruction.
>>
>> I am very much aware of that, and at least one Middle Eastern
>> government has apologized. Many governments were pursuing a diplomatic
>> solution since the publication which obviously Denmark ignored.
>> Perhaps this could have been resolved amicably much earlier and none of
>> this would have come to pass.
>>
>> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/...06toon.leb.php
>>
>> > I do not care what the content of the cartoons were. I do not care
>> > what the purpose behind them was. The actions of the entire world
>> > cannot be controlled, compromised or based upon the beliefs of
>> > some subset of a religion. To think so and allow it sway is
>> > absurd, barbaric and unconscionable.
>>
>> Tell that to Bush. Obviously, that's his (or his advisors') agenda.
>
>
> Which has nothing to do with Boron's point...it's simply a cheap shot
> on your part.
>
> Your constant anti - US frothing at the mouth is getting *increasingly*
> tiresome.
>

Bush supporters *do* tend to find truth, logic, and reason to be tiresome.
They much prefer Fox news and Republican propaganda. Oops, same thing!


--
Peter Aitken

Michel Boucher wrote:

> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
> > Boron Elgar wrote:
> >
> >> I think it would be nice to stand up to religious bigotry. There
> >> are any number of ways it can be done.
> >
> > The pocketbook method is often a good way. Boycotting or
> > supporting a group or cause or business via the bottom line is
> > often very, very effective...tyrants and despots know this and so
> > do us informed consumers :-)
>
> The pocketbook approach works if you have leverage which you don't with
> a lot of Muslim countries because you have alienated them. What are
> you going to do? Tell them you won't buy things that you're already
> not buying?
>
> Desperate much?


Nope. I frequent progressive businesses (especially pro - ***) as much
as I can...and the efforts of myself and others have yielded results
(and that includes down to the neighborhood level).

Can't really do that as regards to regressive Arab/Muslim - owned
companies as they don't do much business on the consumer end of things.


Now I'd really like to put the kibbosh on having to depend on Aramco
for US energy needs, but it seems those Alberta tar sands will
eventually yield much more oil than Saudi Arabia could ever dream of.
Believe me I'm *very* happy to spend money to support Canadian
businesses...

--
Best
Greg "pour me a Labatt's..."

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:37:33 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 07:51:37 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 06:53:40 GMT, (Curly
>>Sue) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>It seems that you don't see the cartoons as "bigoted," only the
>>>response.
>>>
>>
>>It does not matter if they were or were not "bigoted." You have, once
>>again, missed the point completely.
>>
>>And what is a "secular fundie"? Did you make that up all by yourself?
>>
>>Boron
>
>
>Ah...I have searched the term "secular fundie." Google sees it 77
>times. It is used by right wing extremist religious web
>sites...infrequently, at that, but that is its source. Did you pick it
>up from one of those?

No, I'd never heard of it before. It just seems to perfectly describe
the attitudes of those who mirror religious fundamentalists.

> Are you trying to express some sort of bigoted
>statement about those who are do not believe about religion the way
>you do?

You have tossed the word "bigot" around at those who you disagree
with, from the rioters to me. For shame.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:54:38 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\" Lonergan"
> wrote:

>My take, from a Midwestern
>liberal stance is; Bush sucks. That pretty much says it all for me. He is
>a total loser as was his father. JMO of course.
>

Amen, Brother.

That is as close to religion as I get.

Boron

Michel Boucher wrote:
>
> Arri London > wrote in
> :
>
> >> But not caricatures of Moses or Jesus. They hold Moses and Jesus
> >> to be Prophets equal to Muhammad, although they hold that
> >> Muhammad being the most recent is the more accurate.
> >
> > YOu must never have lived in a Muslim neighbourhood.
>
> I lived in a Muslim country, does that count? I also studied Islam,
> does that count? But obviously your experience far outweighs mine...

Apparently it does (and yes I've also studied Islam). Have seen enough
Muslim literature stating that Muhammed is greater than Moses and Jesus.
And no I don't have those materials with me right now.
>
> > They do
> > indeed caricature Moses and Jesus.
>
> Please provide some examples.

Don't have those materials here. If you lived in a Muslim country and
could read the local languages you would have seen such things.
>
> > And they do not consider Moses
> > and Jesus as prophets equal to Muhammed.
>
> But they consider them all to have brought a divine revelation.

Yes; never said otherwise.
>
> > Islam recognises Islam as being superior to Christianity and
> > Judaism. Muslims believe that Jesus isn't God; that really is
> > blasphemy to a Christian.
>
> Muslims don't believe that any revealed religion is revealed TO God,
> but rather BY God to humans able to receive the message.

Yes that's obvious. That's why they can blaspheme Jesus/God so readily.

They
> Believe that Jesus received a revelation as did Muhammad and Moses.
> Muhammad's is more recent and therefore in their eyes more advanced,
> like Religion v3.0.

Advanced isn't really the word I've heard most Muslims use.

>
> > They don't. There are only about one billion Muslims on the
> > planet. The rest of the world's population (about 5 billion plus)
> > isn't Muslim. Non Muslims outnumber Muslims by rather a large
> > margin.
>
> 1.6 billion and they outnumber Westerners. I didn't think I had to
> draw you a picture.

We weren't talking about only Westerners; didn't think I had to draw you
a picture.

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 10:34:17 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Peter Aitken wrote:
>
>>
>> > That may be, but it was not the Danish people or the Danish government
>> > that waved
>> > a proverbial red flag. It was the action of the editors of a newspaper.
>> > The
>> > government's big sin is that the prime minister refused to have a meeting
>> > with
>> > some Islamic embassadors to discuss it because he thought that it was an
>> > issue of
>> > free speech.
>> >
>>
>> What I find particularly troubling is that when the original cartoons were
>> circulated in the Muslim world, some persons unknown added additional and
>> even more offensive cartoons that they created, attributing them to the
>> Danish newspaper, to further inflame the population. While much more
>> blatant, this is akin to the continual program of disinformation from the
>> Bush administration, with the willing help of Fox News and other servile
>> "news" outlets, to whip up public support for the war and their other
>> policies.
>>
>
>It would certainly be ironic that someone in the middle east, and presumably
>Moslem, would create even more offensive cartoons than the originals. One would
>expect that to be a greater sin than drawing or publishing the originals.
>

There are only Muslims in the Middle East? Someone else wants to
blame this affair on Bush...

When I see such thinking in anti-Bushites, I despair that we'll ever
get rid of the neocons.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!