Publications Divided On Self-Censorship After Terrorist Attack

New submitter wmofr writes: Major U.S. and British publications refused to publish related satirical cartoons, at least those about the "prophet", after the terrorist attack in Charlie Hebdo's office, which had 12 people killed. An editor of the Independent said:"But the fact is as an editor you have got to balance principle with pragmatism, and I felt yesterday evening a few different conflicting principles: I felt a duty to readers; a duty to the dead; I felt a duty to journalism – and I also felt a duty to my staff. I think it would have been too much of a risk to unilaterally decide in Britain to be the only newspaper that went ahead and published so in a sense it is true one has self-censored in a way I feel very uncomfortable with. It's an incredibly difficult decision to make." But still many media organizations bravely publishing those cartoons, declining self-censorship. Charlie Hebdo's surviving staff say the magazine will publish again next week, saying, "stupidity will not win." Meanwhile, cartoonists around the world have published strips in response to the attack. The Onion has a poignant take as well. With regard to the attackers, one suspect turned himself in to police, and the other two remain at large.

Comments

Fear

[bhcompy]

If you're afraid of people in your own nation, then you have bigger problems than a political cartoon

Re:Fear

[aardvarkjoe]

True, although the newspapers don't have control over the political choices that have led to a situation where we don't have any idea which people are actually in the nation.

Re:Fear

[bhcompy]

Are you saying the journalist are cowards? If so I disagree. They are instead considering the fact that their staff (with no decision on content) may not want to risk their lives over this.

Not cowards. Rather, if you can't publish a political cartoon without fear of retaliation, then that's not a country any civilized person should desire to live in.

Re:Fear

[atouk]

The fact that you can't publish a cartoon for fear of anything, is the only proof you need to show why the cartoon needs to be published in the first place.

Re:Fear

[wonkey_monkey]

Rather, if you can't publish a political cartoon without fear of retaliation, then that's not a country any civilized person should desire to live in.

So which country would you like to live in, that has 0% chance of anyone doing anything for a crazy reason? Presumably one which enforces weekly mind-probes, and anyone found to not be thinking civilized enough gets deported...

Re:Fear

[aardvarkjoe]

Political choices aren't implicated. It is a false idea that politics could decide who is in a country. That was never the case, not even in the Good Ole Days. Politics can determine who people admit are there, but not who is actually there. It was always thus, back to prehistory.

The ~400,000 people deported from the U.S. for the last several years prove you wrong. The increase in immigration, legal and illegal, in response to incentives placed their by politicians prove you wrong. Obviously politics can have an impact on the people that are present in a country. Claiming otherwise is nonsensical.

Re:Fear

[NotDrWho]

We can't have freedom of speech taken away by a few extremists.

We already have. Even before this attack, there wasn't a single mainstream publication in the U.S. or Europe that would dare publish any depiction of Mohammad, or probably even any criticism of him. These terrorists were just eliminating one of the few remaining forums that was still willing to take on Islam. This wasn't an attack in a war. They've already won that. This was just a mop-up operation.

Re:Fear

[njnnja]

This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day. Of course politics decides who is in a country. Or are you saying that these people all just happened to slip and fall into a bullet for entirely non-political reasons?

Re:Fear

[ganjadude]

a good portion of those "deported" are really just people being turned away at the border. They changed the wya they record that

Re:Fear

[Aighearach]

Political choices aren't implicated. It is a false idea that politics could decide who is in a country. That was never the case, not even in the Good Ole Days. Politics can determine who people admit are there, but not who is actually there. It was always thus, back to prehistory.

The ~400,000 people deported from the U.S. for the last several years prove you wrong. The increase in immigration, legal and illegal, in response to incentives placed their by politicians prove you wrong. Obviously politics can have an impact on the people that are present in a country. Claiming otherwise is nonsensical.

False. And, honestly, that is fall-on-your-face-stupid.

Because you know who you threw out, tells you nothing about who you didn't know about. You can't know it all, and so pointing to knowing something is not evidence of knowing it all.

And in fact, the existence of people you're deporting proves that you don't have control over who is there; if such control existed, those people would not have been present in the first place in order to be deported. And surely you know that the class of people who could be deported is many times larger than the number actually deported. You probably even know that the government doesn't have a list of who all those people are. Here in the US about half of them are unknown to the government except as population estimates.

The key thing to understand is that not everybody informs the entire world of their travel plans. That alone precludes knowing who is in a country, and any claim that it is was under control of the Gubermint in some fantasy Golden Age. You seem aware of deportations, so you already actually knew that such attempts at control has always failed to achieve it in actual fact. There is often a push to keep trying, but it has never been achieved.

I was almost 4 years old before the Gubermint knew about me, and I was born here. And guess what, the Gubermint had no control over my arrival.

Re:Fear

[Half-pint HAL]

The fact that you can't publish a cartoon for fear of anything, is the only proof you need to show why the cartoon needs to be published in the first place.

That does not necessarily follow. If you attack a problem in the wrong way, you can exacerbate it.

Take fat shaming, for example. Fat shamers declare they're doing it for the fat person's own good, but time and again it has been shown that fat shaming undermines overweight people's self-confidence, making it harder for them to lose weight, and actually encouraging weight gain. It doesn't work.

Terrorism does not aim to win a war by force of arms, but rather to polarise society. Terrorism attempts to turn its enemies into its best recruiters, by making them suspicious of everybody in the terrorists social/ethnic/religious group. Fundamentalist Islamic terrorists want us to radicalise Muslims for them. They want us to fear Muslims, to hate Muslims. They want us to attack Islam to drive a wedge between us and moderate Muslims.

If you consider drawing images of Muhammed to be a retaliation against the extremists, then it is one akin to nuking Baghdad just to be sure of getting Saddam Hussein. The depiction of Muhammed is haram, and therefore an affront to a great many Muslims, the vast of whom have no thoughts of reprisals. It is an attack on the whole religion, not just the fundamentalists. It creates that sense of opposition that the terrorists want -- it's tells Muslims that Western society is against them.

Of course, that doesn't mean the killers weren't a bunch of sick b*st*rds... just that we have to be careful not to react in the way they want us to.

Re:Fear

[ultranova]

If you consider drawing images of Muhammed to be a retaliation against the extremists, then it is one akin to nuking Baghdad just to be sure of getting Saddam Hussein. The depiction of Muhammed is haram, and therefore an affront to a great many Muslims, the vast of whom have no thoughts of reprisals. It is an attack on the whole religion, not just the fundamentalists. It creates that sense of opposition that the terrorists want -- it's tells Muslims that Western society is against them.

The problem is, modern Western society is built on the idea that anything can be questioned, and that includes outright ridicule. Furthermore, we didn't just wake up one day and decide it might be fun; rather, we went through Dark Age after Dark Age trying to keep our holy cows untouchable. It didn't work. Every single time it brought nothing but shame on those who did it, misery and death on everyone else, and rot for the whole society. So this is the one thing we can't do.

If Islam cannot abide depicting Mohammed, then Islam is not compatible with Western civilization. You can ignore those saying things you don't like; you can condemn them to the deepest pit of Hell and glorify in their coming torture; but the second you actually take up arms to silence them you've crossed a line. If the price of peace with Islam is self-censorship, then there can be no peace because that's the one price that West can't pay.

Of course, it could well be that Muslims can't give up this point either. I'm not a religious scholar, so I can't say. But if it's true, then we - Muslims and non-Muslims alike - should begin negotiations on how to separate Islam from the West peacefully ASAP, seeing how the alternative is open war.

Re:Fear

[Hognoxious]

Terrorism does not aim to win a war by force of arms, but rather to polarise society. Terrorism attempts to turn its enemies into its best recruiters, by making them suspicious of everybody in the terrorists social/ethnic/religious group.

No. That's just a means to an end.

The goal is to get the opponent to defeat himself by deciding the fight isn't worth it.

Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons

[davidwr]

If every newspaper in France were to re-print some of the more controversial cartoons form Charlie Hebdo, or offer to print and distribute next week's issue as a special insert, it would send a strong message to terrorists that the "Streisand Effect" is real.

I've already seen one mainstream American daily run a bunch of Charlie Hebdo cartoons in its online edition, including some depicting Mohammad (yes, THAT Mohammad). Without the mass murder, a lot fewer people would've seen that image.

Re:Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons

[JaredOfEuropa]

The terrorists and the people behind them love cartoons like these. They are also happy with strong reactions to recent events, especially with a backlash against ordinary muslim folk in the West. All that just makes it easier to convince impressionable youngsters to take up arms or stupidly blow themselves up in crowded places.

Re:Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons

[dablow]

If I where in charge there, it's what I would have done. Ask every form of media in the nation (print, paper, radio, tv, etc) to show the MOST controversial cartoons Charlie Hebdo printed for a 24-hour period in honor of those that died.

Fuck this 1 min of silence bullshit.

Make it clear to all that VIOLENCE will NEVER WORK TO SILENCE PEOPLE USING FEAR.

Re:Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons

[MiniMike]

If every newspaper in France were to re-print some of the more controversial cartoons form Charlie Hebdo, or offer to print and distribute next week's issue as a special insert, it would send a strong message to terrorists that the "Streisand Effect" is real.

And then the terrorists next target: Barbra Streisand.

Re:Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons

[Archangel Michael]

If you remain silent, because of fear, they have already won.

Fear = Fight or Flight. I pity those that choose flight, but we should let them leave. However, we shouldn't let those cowering in fear dictate our response, simply because their choice is borderline irrational. Neither should we allow the kneejerk response from the "fight" crowd.

Here is my view:

1) Islam, is not a peaceful religion. There is no major Muslim outcry over any of the acts committed by Muslims. I didn't say there was none, I said there was no major outcry.

2) Islam, does take offense at things that Western Culture deems acceptable for the purposes of liberty, even tasteless crude humor. Muslims in general haven not expressed any desire to curb their rhetoric.

3) Islam doesn't teach co-existence, it teaches domination.

Therefore, for these reasons (and more) I have concluded that as it stands right now, Islam is not compatible with Western culture. Flat out not possible. I have NO problem with Muslims staying and living in their own countries, where they can fight and have all the intolerance they want. However, people who want to come to western countries, and still be Muslim, need to realize that their cultural antics will not be accepted at all, as they are contrary to western culture.

Western cultures do no need Islam. We don't want Islam. We don't like Islam. Muslims need to go back the their asswipe countries in the desert and stay there.

Re:Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons

[JaredOfEuropa]

Many of the youngsters from my own country who trot off to Syria to fight for IS, though not from the top rungs of society's ladder, are hardly ostracized, but have an education and some have good jobs as well. And while some discrimination happens (events like these don't help), muslims are hardly treated like crap. They are given every opportunity to make something of themselves. Note that there are many other minority groups who face some discrimination, a degree of economic dsadvantage, and the harsh realities of an economic crisis, but none of them have an inclination to start blowing people up in the name of whatever. Religion definitely plays a role here.

With that said, the last thing we should do is to lay responsibility for these events at the doorstep of every muslim in our country. That is what the terrorists want. For us to give regular muslims the impression that they don't have any better options.

Re:Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons

[Aighearach]

You and your hate speech do not speak for "Western cultures." Don't tell us what we want or need, you aren't us and you don't know.

There is, however, a popular consensus in Western culture that we have, had, will have, and value religious freedom.

Re:Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons

[khasim]

If you remain silent, because of fear, they have already won.

Yes.

1) Islam, is not a peaceful religion. There is no major Muslim outcry over any of the acts committed by Muslims. I didn't say there was none, I said there was no major outcry.

Just because you haven't seen them does not mean that they haven't happened. Have you gone looking for them? The media usually skips them because blood gets more views.

2) Islam, does take offense at things that Western Culture deems acceptable for the purposes of liberty, even tasteless crude humor. Muslims in general haven not expressed any desire to curb their rhetoric.

There are at least a million Muslims living in the USofA. The majority seem to be okay with it.

3) Islam doesn't teach co-existence, it teaches domination.

What you claim Islam teaches and how a million Muslims live, every day, in the USofA ... well there seems to be a disconnect there.

Western cultures do no need Islam. We don't want Islam. We don't like Islam. Muslims need to go back the their asswipe countries in the desert and stay there.

I've heard the same rhetoric about blacks. And Hispanics. It's easy to hate someone you've never met.

But then, I live in Seattle and there are two halal markets within a mile of me.

Re:Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons

[itzly]

What you claim Islam teaches and how a million Muslims live, every day, in the USofA ... well there seems to be a disconnect there.

If you're in the local minority, it is wise to shut up and nod. There are a million Muslims in the USA, but close to half a million Paris metro area. When neighborhoods get a majority Muslim population, they start to make the rules.

Re:Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons

[khasim]

If you're in the local minority, it is wise to shut up and nod.

So you're saying that the GP was wrong about Islam and it actually teaches a pragmatic approach to democratically elected representative government?

Muhammad Ali is a Sunni. He refused to fight in Vietnam as a conscientious objector. Yet he was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bush in 2005. So .... bad Muslim? Or maybe your understanding of Muslims could be expanded upon by meeting more of them?

Re:Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons

[khasim]

And people like you will evidently give it to them under the guise of political correctness.

So first you make claims about what Islam teaches because you know more about it than a million Muslims living in the USofA right now.

Then you make claims about what I believe. You don't know me any more than you know any Muslim living here.

After all, you don't want to Offend a Muslim, or he might cut your head off or shoot you while you're in a meeting.

Again, you don't know me any more than you know any Muslim. I spent 7 years in the Army. I've watched people whose job it was to shoot me watching me. As it was mine to shoot them.

And because I understand math, I know that if a million of them have not tried to shoot me yet then they probably won't. Because despite your claims, they do NOT believe what you claim they do.

And you 'd know that if you knew any Muslims.

However, it is blind political correctness that is allowing most liberals to cede their ideals in the name of tolerance.

What ideals have been ceded?

Because the fact remains, Western values are not valued by Muslims.

Except for the million Muslims who live here right now.

I've heard it all before. It's always about "them" and how "they" are "bad" because of "their" culture or religion or whatever.

Whether "they" are Muslims or blacks or Hispanics or "gooks" or "Japs" or ...

Maybe you should read George Takei's writings on his experience in an internment camp.

Re:Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons

[Archangel Michael]

12 Dead Journalists refute your whole point. The cry of "we have avenged the prophet" refute your points. The dancing in the streets by thousands, hundreds of thousands of Muslims refute your whole point. Muslim Imams issuing FATWAS against people that write books and color cartoons is a refutation of your point.

IMHO actions speak louder than your protestations. I

I mean, I could give example after example of the "Peaceful" religion doing horrible things, in the name of Allah, and for the "prophet", but I am pretty sure that you'll take each one as a "unique" and "lone" example, and not a representation of the whole. So, do you claim "hate speech" when people say that WBC represents all Christians? I didn't think so.

Re:Streisand Effect and Mohammad cartoons

[RandCraw]

If there had been a major outcry from Muslims, how would you know? Are you attuned to their media?

Do you imagine most Muslims belong to sopme sort of large collective whose spokesman appears before media outlets to make official pronouncements? AFAIK, they don't. Aside from Catholics and the Pope, neither do Christians.

What's more, do you imagine that Muslims speak with one voice on most issues? When's the last time Christians agreed on anything?

I know a few muslims in the US. They tend not to be that outspoken about their beliefs, probably out of fear of intolerance. Like yours.

('Archangel Michael'? Really? How old are you?)

Answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

When these incidents occur, burn 10,000 Korans for every innocent person murdered. Covered in bacon grease.

Re:Answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

How is burning a Koran "extremism"?

Re:Answer:

[Penguinisto]

Actually...

"According to Rear Admiral D.P. Mannix, who fought the Moros as a young lieutenant from 1907–1908, the Americans exploited Muslim taboos by wrapping dead Moros in pig's skin and "stuffing [their] mouth[s] with pork", thereby deterring the Moros from continuing with their suicide attacks."

"Moros" = Filipino muslim rebels.

Not saying it was a good move or a bad one, and I can't say for certain how effective it was, but you can't argue with the results.

Re:Answer:

[aevan]

By appeasement of course! And apologising for them. And victim blaming. I'm sure *this* time they'll be happy and stop.

Re:Answer:

[Aighearach]

Not saying it was a good move or a bad one, and I can't say for certain how effective it was, but you can't argue with the results.

If you can't say how effective it was, you can't really argue for any results.

Re:Answer:

[cryptolemur]

Apparently it wasn't that effective, since nobody has been able to verify this "myth". The young moros may have committed in less juramentados merely due to improved conditions and infrastructure, and seeing US troops as less of an enemy.
Anyway, they were still doing it in 1940, they were doing it to japanese, the last incident was in 2011, so the habit still exists...
And apparently pighides or pork having nothing to do with getting to heaven is an absurd idea. To a Muslim, that is.

Better Onion article

[wiredlogic]

This is a better article[NSFW] from the Onion.

Islam caters to a really special kind of demagoguery that its followers can be more batshit crazy over a cartoon than even the most committed abortion clinic bombers.

Re:Better Onion article

[Jawnn]

This is a better article[NSFW] from the Onion.

Islam caters to a really special kind of demagoguery that its followers can be more batshit crazy over a cartoon than even the most committed abortion clinic bombers.

Sorry, but I don't see much of distinction there. Terrorism and murder are no more, or less, justified by any particular religious belief. Hurting other people because you believe the invisible man in the sky somehow demands it of you is kinda the very definition of bat-shit crazy.

Re:Better Onion article

[Trailer Trash]

The difference is that abortion results in a dead baby, so abortion clinic bombers at least think they have some justification, even if few people agree with them that the ends justifies the means.

On the other hand a cartoon is just that - a cartoon; a piece of paper with a drawing. Nobody is harmed by a cartoon.

Re:Better Onion article

[itzly]

You support murder. Fuck you.

It isn't murder until somebody cares enough.

Best strategy?

[evilsemaj]

Perhaps the best strategy in this case would be for all creative artists and writers to produce as much content as they can and Creative Commons license it, so the content can all be broadcast everywhere and we all agree to post and publish it in every medium on every forum possible. That way, anyone who would take offense is so inundated they can not possibly respond.

So... call them?

[Kjella]

I think it would have been too much of a risk to unilaterally decide in Britain to be the only newspaper that went ahead and published

Then don't. Call them up, sure you're competitors but at least some feel just like you. And if you manage to enlist some, more might join you. Accept conditionals if you have to like "If at least five national newspapers publish we will too" until you have five. Or you were the only one, in which case journalism is already pretty boned.

Stand your ground.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody that self censors or allows others to censor you, is guilty of aiding the terrorist.

Stand your ground, but be prepared to fight back by being armed to the teeth, and have security measures in place.

Outlaw islam. It's not a real religion anyway; it's an idealogy, a form of government and we already have that. Also use the Mohammed Emote. (((:~(>>

it seems to be the correct answer is simple.

[nimbius]

If you're a profiteering advert monetizing clickbait pandering mainstream outlet with a mandate to deliver ROI on content and ensure channel marketing buy-in consistently realizes revenue, then please work to censor all 11 forbidden media words as well as any overt references to political, social, or religious figures that may impact quarterly earnings, subscribership, and total time of view. Also take note that wearable technology is fashionable this year.

if on the other hand you're an actual newspaper, journalist, podcaster, or god forbid television news programme that works to inform viewers objectively and spark meaningful discussion of current events be they political, social, or religious regardless of their tie-in ability to a product or service, please accept my sincere condolences as this type of response has always been a threat to your work. now that someone has actualized it, the real question is, are your convictions still genuine when tested?

If your decision is....

[dablow]

....you do not want to print the pictures because you are afraid for your own life, those of your staff or relatives, well I am sorry to say that the extremists have WON.

No to mention if it gives the slightest hint that it worked, would invite others to act like that to silence further opposition with those with dissenting views.

Re:If your decision is....

[Frescard]

...you do not want to print the pictures because you are afraid for your own life, those of your staff or relatives, well I am sorry to say that the extremists have WON.

Which is, of course, easy to say as a semi-anonymous poster on the Internet.
But if your actions may actually cause somebody to lose their life, then the decision is not quite as simple.

After all, journalists aren't soldiers (who are well aware of the risk of getting killed while doing their job, and are equipped to defend themselves).
Some office worker at a magazine (it doesn't even have to be a journalist) has no protection at all (and there isn't enough police to protect every one 24/7), and if some nutcase is out to get them, they most likely will.

I'm sure every editor will fight as much as they can for freedom of press, but if that translates into a death sentence (for them, or some random employee), then the priority lies on eliminating those threats first. Only then can we get back to business as usual.

Self-Cenorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Means the terrorists ( muslims ) win.

"Can't stop the signal Mal"

[PhantomHarlock]

Others here have alluded simiarly. What if EVERY SINGLE MAJOR DAILY IN THE WORLD published the same images? They would no longer have a specific target and the streisand effect would be complete.

Re:"Can't stop the signal Mal"

[Beerdood]

I mentioned this earlier in this thread too, but I think this is more of a Prisoner's Dilemma scenario than Streisand effect. But with more than 2 participants. You're certainly correct otherwise though;

If the vast majority of papers (> 80%) published the cartoons, then it sends a clear message that terrorism does nothing (or very little) to deter printing blasphemous content. Terrorists will be deterred from bombing or shooting up publishers and cartoonists, since backing up a threat of death *still* didn't deter these papers from publishing, and now they're less inclined to publish in the future.

If none of the papers, or very little (less than 10%) published the cartoons, then it sends a clear message that threats of death work, because most of the papers declined to print potentially offensive material. This reinforces the notion that death threats do work when carried out. But this also puts greater risk on the few places that do publish, because now there's less targets to choose from.

Choosing not to publish the cartoon is the best decision as the individual organization, but the worst decision for the greater good (assuming "greater good" means less terrorism and greater freedom of speech).

"which had 12 people killed." WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who talks like that?

Islam... in layman's terms

Here's how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains under 2% in any given country, they will, for the most part, be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- 0.6% Muslim
Australia -- 1.5% Muslim
Canada -- 1.9% Muslim
China -- 1.8% Muslim
Italy -- 1.5% Muslim
Norway -- 1.8% Muslim

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize to other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from prisons and street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- 2% Muslim
Germany -- 3.7% Muslim
United Kingdom -- 2.7% Muslim
Spain -- 4% Muslim
Thailand -- 4.6% Muslim

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- 8% Muslim
Philippines -- 5% Muslim
Sweden -- 5% Muslim
Switzerland -- 4.3% Muslim
The Netherlands -- 5.5% Muslim
Trinidad & Tobago -- 5.8% Muslim

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Shari'ah, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Shari'ah law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana -- 10% Muslim
India -- 13.4% Muslim
Israel -- 16% Muslim
Kenya -- 10% Muslim
Russia -- 15% Muslim

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, as in:

Ethiopia -- 32.8% Muslim

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, as in:

Bosnia -- 40% Muslim
Chad -- 53.1% Muslim
Lebanon -- 59.7% Muslim

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Shariah Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels (yes, there really is such a thing) as in:

Albania -- 70% Muslim
Malaysia -- 60.4% Muslim
Qatar -- 77.5% Muslim
Sudan -- 70% Muslim

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some state-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- 83% Muslim
Egypt -- 90% Muslim
Gaza -- 98.7% Muslim
Indonesia -- 86.1% Muslim
Iran -- 98% Muslim
Iraq -- 97% Muslim
Jordan -- 92% Muslim
Morocco -- 98.7% Muslim
Pakistan -- 97% Muslim
Palestine -- 99% Muslim
Syria -- 90% Muslim
Tajikistan -- 90% Muslim
Turkey -- 99.8% Muslim
United Arab Emirates -- 96% Muslim

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here, there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, as in:

Afghanistan -- 100% Muslim
Saudi Arabia -- 100% Muslim
Somalia -- 100% Muslim
Yemen -- 100% Muslim

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states, the most radical Muslims intimidate, spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims for a variety of reasons.

QUOTE:

"Be

Re:"which had 12 people killed." WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

> they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food,

OMG, they will buy food that they like, the end of civilization is nigh!

> , thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. T

And lo, the Union of Koranic Kitchen Workers soon dominated the land!

> They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.

Scary stuff, taking their business elsewhere, that's the worst kind of terrorism!

> 100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam'

It will usher in the largest city in Tanzania?

> But what the hell. Celebrate diversity... while you can, anyway.

Turns out the original author of that cut-n-paste is Phil Aguilar. This is a guy in a 'christian' biker gang that likes to get in to bar fights with Hells Angels. So now you know what kind of expert this guy is on Islam. Real scholarly and all.

Re:"which had 12 people killed." WTF?

[hankwang]

"Turkey -- 99.8% Muslim"

Where did you get that number? Walk around in a big city and you will see less than 50% of the local women wearing head scarves, in most neighborhoods. In some places, it's less than 10%.

Turkey does register most citizens as "muslim" as a default value, unless they are christian or jewish, but it has little to do with the beliefs of those citizens. Many Turks are atheistic (and utterly despise the present muslim government).

Source: my Turkish S.O., who has "Islam" in her passport despite coming from a family that has been secular for several generations.

Sad

[Charliemopps]

If the Newspapers of the world had any backbone at all, they'd all band together and republish the cartoon front page on Monday along with pictures of the attackers with captions that say "This image is being published at the request of these 2 infidels."

Along with that they should declare that every time a reporter working for one of their papers is killed in an attempt to silence them, they will again run Muhammads image on the front page of their papers. The responsibility for the image will be the attackers and they'll burn in hell for their idolatry. Want to stay out of hell? Stop murdering people.

An old noble principle

[mi]

I felt a duty to readers; a duty to the dead; I felt a duty to journalism – and I also felt a duty to my staff.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

So you're not against Islam?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have nothing against Islam?
Then you have nothing against stoning, amputations, flogging, female genital mutilation, suicide bombers, beheadings, "honour" killings, repression of free speech, abolition of Parliament and its replacement with Shariah, banning of music, banning of beer and wine, banning of pork, dressing women in burkhas, beating of wives, mutiple wives, killing of rape victims, persecution of Jews and Christians, child brides, repression of reason and questioning, islamic police states, burning of churches, killing anyone who leaves islam, killing anyone who questions the teachings of islam, total intolerance of other religions, inferior status of women, violent Jihad against non-muslims, arranged marriages, acid attacks, public hangings, mutilations, rewriting of history, denial of islamic atrocities...

Our strongest weapon

[gman003]

Our strongest weapon in the fight against extremist religious groups is continued freedom.

If they attack us over free speech, let us speak ten times as freely.

If they attack us over free religion, let us start ten new churches of ten different faiths.

If they attack us for treating people equally, let us treat them equally as well.

We should not attack them in retaliation - that just makes us both wrong. Violence will not solve this problem. This is a war of ideas - and freedom of speech will carry our ideas further and louder than theirs ever will. It will take generations, but it's already in progress. They are resorting to violence now because they can already see that they cannot win by words.

Re:Our strongest weapon

[Shakrai]

We should not attack them in retaliation

Huh? Self-defense is not 'retaliation'; neither is bringing those responsible for the commission of heinous crimes to justice.

Re:Our strongest weapon

[gman003]

Perhaps I should have been clearer.

Attacking, with extreme precision, those who committed or are responsible for the attacks, is completely justified. I was speaking against larger-scale retaliation against muslims as a whole, which a surprising number of people seem to feel justified.

Re:The latest trend...

[Holi]

You're an idiot. Ahmed was the cop who died and the #jesuisahmed isn't counter to #jesuischarlie it compliments it. "I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so." Sounds a bit more like Voltaire then a terrorist.

Duty to intelligence

[Okian Warrior]

How about a duty to intelligence?

Look to the future and consider two outcomes: where media self-censors based on threats of attack from extremists, or where media blatantly continues in the face of such threats.

The decisions made today will bring about one of these scenarios. It's a simple case of "payback horizon": how far ahead do you plan for.

If you self-censor right now, it will protect your people and your business near-term, but over time you will find yourself increasingly subject to threats and attacks, you will be self-censoring more and more.

One of the definitions of intelligence is the ability to put off short-term rewards for a larger long-term gain. Being frightened into submission has near-term benefits, but those policies will not end well.

See Bullying.

It's an easy choice - are you a coward?

[WillAffleckUW]

If you're a coward and you side with Terrorists making us all live in Fear, you don't publish the cartoons.

If you're brave and refuse to live in Fear, you publish the cartoons.

And then, a week later, you write an editorial about how the cartoons are disgusting.

Re:It's an easy choice - are you a coward?

[WillAffleckUW]

By the way, you can buy the English translation of the book on Amazon now. In France, you can buy the French version. My guess is in Canada or the UK, you can buy either version.

Make it a best seller.

Don't change your policies!

[jd.schmidt]

Don't censor yourself more or *LESS* because of what happened. If you do either, you are letting these events change your belief in what is right. If you never had a belief in what was right to begin with, well I can't help you there.

Blaming the victim (The terrorists are defining)

[mi]

Have you seen the cartoons? They aren't much more than being assholes for the sake of being assholes.

Even if this was true, you are justifying their murders... Nice job of blaming the victim.

they are now also symbols of civilization over depravity

Well, maybe, not all is lost for you...

AP has decided to censor other blasphemous photos like Serrano's Piss Christ.

It was incredibly offensive to Christians, but nobody was killed over it. Nor even credibly threatened with murder.

nobody considered censoring it back when one theater showing it was burnt to the ground, injuring 12, audiences in others got tear gassed and Scorsese got death threats

The NYTimes article you linked to makes no mention of any "threats". Nor does it allege, the theater fire was an arson. The sole tear-gas attack mentioned in the article was over a different movie — one glorifying abortions, rather than insulting Christianity.

Comparing a murder of 12 people to a tear-gas attack is quite mind boggling...

Re:The latest trend...

[Anonymous Coward]

This got modded up? This is what's wrong with Slashdot these days.

This is that obnoxious SJW bullshit where they latch on to some trending thing and talk about how horribly racist it was. The fact of the matter is that Charlie Hebdo satirized EVERYONE: one of their covers had the Trinity having anal sex with each other. (The Holy Ghost was represented as an eye in a triangle shoved up Jesus's butt, in case you're wondering how on earth THAT would work.)

By focusing on the fact that Charlie Hebdo "insulted Islam" you're supporting the terrorists. Charlie Hebdo went after everyone, and that included Islam along with Christianity. #JeSuisAhmed is designed to cast Charlie Hebdo as a racist organization when they simply weren't. It's SJW contrarian bullshit where literally everything offends and we have to focus on how they "offended Islam" instead of the fact that they were killed to silence their free speech.

Re:The latest trend...

[Tailhook]

No, really [...] the SJWs are really coming in on the side of the terrorists

As they've always done forever. Excusing and rationalizing terror, usually by attempting to argue equivalence, is standard SJW behavior. Not many people will be as surprised by this as you appear to be...

Another blaming of the victims (Striesand Effect)

[mi]

Youngsters don't take up arms and blow themselves up because they're impressionable. They do so because they don't perceive that they have any better options. Take a hard look at the youth unemployment rate in France and the manner in which the immigrant Muslim community is treated.

Voila! It is France's own fault and they deserve what violence they get over it.

When you ostracize 7% (5M / 66M) of your population such outcomes are wholly predictable.

A population following a religion, that is incompatible with Freedom of Speech, must be "ostracized". It is the moral duty of a civilized man to mock, ridicule and otherwise fight any ideology, that not only tolerates, not only encourages, but mandates killing people for certain speech...

Re:Really?

[mi]

Here are folks in the Muslim community and what they say about the attacks.

And here is a Muslim cleric justifying it. And he is doing a better job — while these outraged Muslims are simply denouncing the attack as contrary to their understanding of Islam, he provides Koran quotes objectively proving the opposite:This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."

Thus, I tend to think, that these good people are either ignorant, in denial, or just lying — either out of fear of persecution or to advance their cause.

Re:Mohammed

[jader3rd]

But, when all that is said, is it in any way sensible that you go out of your way to stir up the shit?

Yes. Everything must be open to scrutiny.

And if you provoke a terrorist attack that gets a lot of innocents killed - are you not partially to blame, for all your freedom of speech?

No. Absolutely No.

Re:Another blaming of the victims (Striesand Effec

[Imazalil]

If that was half-way true then Europe would now be a war-ravaged waste land after 44-odd million Muslims living in Europe took to arms over the Danish cartoon published years ago.

Oh, you mean that didn't happen. It's as if someone is not interpreting what they are reading correctly. hmm.

Re:The latest trend...

[jklovanc]

By focusing on the fact that Charlie Hebdo "insulted Islam" you're supporting the terrorists.

The focus come from you not the writer. There are two very important parts to the following quote;

"I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so.

They are "Charlie ridiculed my faith" and "I died defending his right to do so". You chose to focus on the first part. I choose to focus on the second part. The point of the statement is that even if insult occurred the cop chose to die defending the right to make that insult.

It's SJW contrarian bullshit where literally everything offends and we have to focus on how they "offended Islam" instead of the fact that they were killed to silence their free speech.

No one has to focus on what is put in front of them. You have a brain; choose for yourself what to focus on. The point you completely miss is that a Muslim died trying to defend free speech even though the free speech was an insult to his religion. It is just trying to point out that not all Muslims are against free speech.

Re:Mohammed

[JaredOfEuropa]

Short answer: no. If you leave your door unlocked, you are not responsible for your house being burgled. If you (as a woman) dress up nicely for a night out on the town, you are not responsible for being raped on the way back home. Even if you pull down your bra and jiggle your jugs in front of a particularly drunk and horny looking individual in a dark alley. It's not wise, but that's statistics, not morality.

Charlie Hebdo have been threatened before (their office was firebombed if I recall correctly). Should they have stopped making their funnies then? Should we stop making fun of anyone when they threaten physical bodily harm? There are folk out there who, as someone put it, are offended deeply if their ligher doesn't work; should we cater to their whims too? I'd prefer to live in a society of laws rather than whims, and I for one am rather sad to live in a world where a movie like "Life of Brian" probably couldn't be made anymore, especially if they picked Mohammed as a target this time.

Re:The latest trend...

[Aighearach]

No, really [...] the SJWs are really coming in on the side of the terrorists

As they've always done forever. Excusing and rationalizing terror, usually by attempting to argue equivalence, is standard SJW behavior. Not many people will be as surprised by this as you appear to be...

Yes, insulting your neckbeard has always been terrorism. And some sort of "equivalence," if argued for, becomes... equivalent... to mass murder driven by hate.

You can't make up this kind of stupid.

Self-censorship

[guytoronto]

If you as a publisher self-censor to "protect your staff", then you can't complain when the government wants to censor you to "protect the country".

Re:Another blaming of the victims (Striesand Effec

[mi]

If that was half-way true then Europe would now be a war-ravaged waste land after 44-odd million Muslims living in Europe took to arms over the Danish cartoon published years ago.

No, this would've happened, if the 44-odd million Muslims actually followed their professed religion in full. Fortunately, they don't — not all of them. Unfortunately, enough of them do...

My point remains — their religion actually does mandate capital punishment for anybody insulting it or its prophets — unlike any other modern religion. And for that reason, it is the moral duty of all civilized people to mock it, ridicule it, and otherwise prevent it from spreading and, better yet, eradicate it for good.

Stop calling the publishers cowards

[Beerdood]

I know it's really easy to just lambast the publishers as cowards for refusing to publish the cartoons (as you post anonymously or semi-anonymously on slashdot, you brave soul), but it's not an easy choice to make. It's been clearly demonstrated that by publishing mohammed cartoons, there's a non-zero chance that some nut-job will break into your building and murder a bunch of your staff. Are you as an editor willing to take that chance? Are you willing to put your staff at risk, even for a minimal chance of violence against your station? It's sooooo easy to criticize them for not publishing offensive cartoon, but I really doubt that the majority of you would post a crude drawing of mohammed on your facebook accounts, or drop off a few thousand copies of an offensive cartoon in your neighborhood mailboxes (with your personal address listed). Because then you're truly willing to take the same upon the same risk that these cartoonists (and their publishers) take.

From a litigation standpoint alone, is it worth publishing an offensive cartoon? Probably not if you're in a litigious friendly nation. If you're the editor, and if some shit goes down, and there's the slightest possibility your organization could be held liable for the deaths of your staff because you totally *knew* this could happen, and could have avoided it by not publishing the offensive article - you bet your ass they'll get sued by the families of the victims. That risk probably isn't worth whatever benefit they get for being more ballsy in the eyes of the viewer. The editors know this and factor this in their decision making.

Whether to publish or not is more of a Prisoner's dilemma than it is Streisand effect as mentioned elsewhere in the comments here, except with more than 2 "prisoners" (publishers - assume not publishing is equivalent to testifying in the analogy). The better move for yourself is to not publish and have no risk. But the better move for the collective is to publish. If all the publishers decided to publish, that would be the greatest overall benefit for freedom of speech, because it demonstrates they're not afraid of terrorism. It also minimizes the risk for each publisher, because terrorists don't have the resources to target all of the publishers in existence. They might even give up completely, realizing there's too many people offending their religion. But if nobody publishes cartoons out of fear, it reinforces the idea that threats of violence work (and the censored SouthPark scene in the "I learned something today" segment is true). If only handful of publishers decide to publish offensive mohammed cartoons, then it still reinforces the idea that threats of violence work (because most publishers aren't doing it, clearly because they're afraid of terrorism), AND it puts these few publishers at a much greater risk of terrorism. It fucking sucks, but the only way this is going to work is if a large majority of publishers decide to print these cartoons as a response.

Re:Stop calling the publishers cowards

[Half-pint HAL]

OK, well a guy got stabbed in Glasgow not so long ago because he called a Celtic fan a "fenian bastard". Is it now OK and even necessary to call every single Celtic fan, most of whom have never stabbed anyone, "fenian bastards"?

Perfect demonstration of the problem

[GameboyRMH]

Me and my boss at lunch today:

Me: "They should have had that building way better secured, especially after being firebombed."

Boss: "What would you do to secure it?"

Me: "Armored building like a US embassy, armed guards at the door, and a heavy armored door between the lobby and work area."

Boss: "What if they hit it with a rocket launcher? It'll go through even an armored door."

Me: "Maybe build it in a basement?"

Boss: "Or you could just not print Mohammed cartoons."

And that's what any business is going to do, the much cheaper and easier solution. The terrorists won. No business could print such things after yesterday.

Re:False flag

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel, you nincompoop.

Re:Another blaming of the victims (Striesand Effec

[currently_awake]

No, we need to "Edit" the religion, and stamp out the practices we find incompatible with our culture. Just as was done with Christianity (stoning adulterers and witches, killing homosexuals etc)

Re:Can we make fum on Jesus and jews?

[Arkh89]

You mean like these ones?
It's hard to receive money from jerks!
Having diner with assholes.
Pope 23 and his three dadies.
The Talmud is horseshit.
Will do anything to get new customers!
Next week, I will show you the resurrection trick

Yeah, these guys went down on the extremists of some religions (the Christians, The Muslims and The Jews, the current largest in France) just as much as they did on politics, celebrities, social conflicts and others...
Growing up there, I saw plenty of these cartoons. Some are not very funny, some are, some are very intelligent, some very dumb... but if the one thing I remember is that : if it hurts you at some point, it means that there is a layer of truth deep down.

Monde de merde...

Re:False flag

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel, where the Jews lived 2000 years ago (along with a bunch of other people), where various people including some Jews lived for the following 2000 years, and which was then taken by force, from the people who had been living there continuously for generations, by the British and friends, and given to people mostly born in Europe who may have been extremely distant descendants of the Jews who had lived there those 2000 years before, as a way of assuaging their own guilt over not stopping Nazi assholes.

Oh, and by the way, the Jews' folk history says that they originally took that same land from its prior inhabitants in a genocidal invasion. I don't know if that's true, but since that's how people usually get land, I'm inclined to believe it. So if we can find the descendants of the Philistines or the Midianites or whoever, can we give the land back to them? I honestly don't know who they'd be, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some of them were among the people displaced to create Israel...

Israel is there now, and it would be a stupid mistake to ignore that or try to undo it. What's done is done, and 60 years makes Israel as legitimate as any other state. That doesn't change the fact that it was another stupid mistake to create Israel in the first place, and, yes, that mistake was absolutely an imperialistic and racist one.

States based on ethnicity or religion are a bad idea anyway, no matter how popular they may be.

Oh, and to avoid being called an "islamofascist", I'd like to point out that Muhammed was a pedophilic warlord cult leader. Actually not a bad guy as pedophilic warlord cult leaders go, but a pedophilic warlord cult leader nonetheless. And obviously he was not inspired by any real sky fairy. Not that any of that is relevant to anything going on this century. In independent news, the most visible carriers of the banner of Islam right now are fanatical tribal assholes who can't handle the real world, are trying to hide from it using religion, and would make any bad thing Israel has ever done look like naughty toddler games if they got any real power.

Re:Another blaming of the victims (Striesand Effec

[mi]

Just as was done with Christianity (stoning adulterers and witches, killing homosexuals etc)

That was much easier with Christianity, because those things are not attributed to Him in the scripture — nor to any of His prophets.

On contrast, the Koran is the verbatim word of God. Sanitizing that will be much more difficult. Places like Indonesia and Malaysia may be doing a decent job of it despite the difficulties, but that's because their populations, largely, can not read the original text (in Arabic).

Also, even the "unedited" Christianity (with its "leaving Caesar's to Caesar") was still compatible with the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, whereas Islam (with theocracy being the only acceptable way of government) is not.

Re:Mohammed

[Aighearach]

by that logic, there are no christians, only other pagan sects, being that most the stories in the bible were rewrites of pagan stories right???

Nope. Logic fail there. Maybe if I abstract it you can see past the blinding context.

All Blargs are Blorgs. Therefore there are no Blorgs. T/F?

See how easy that one actually is?

Jews, Christians, Muslims all believe in the same God; the God of Abraham. And all three religions link themselves to Abraham by a different lineage. They are indisputably different branches of the same religion.

All three believe in (what the Christians call) the Old Testament, and the prophesy of the "Son of Man" who is implied to also be the Son of God, though never named as such, and who is the "Messiah" and brings about the forgiveness of Original Sin.

Jews believe that Jesus was a Prophet but not the Son of Man and not the Messiah. They're still waiting for the Prophesy to be fulfilled.

Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of Man, the Messiah, and that his death fulfilled the Prophesy. They also believe there have been no new Prophets since before Jesus.

Muslims agree with Christians entirely about Jesus being the Son of Man, the Messiah, and his fulfillment of said Prophesy. They also believe that there had been one additional Prophet since then, Mohamed, the Seal of the Prophets, who was not divine at all but merely a human man who was chosen by God for the job of Prophet, and who was given a large set of rules to complete the teachings. The idea is that humans weren't ready for many teachings yet at the time of the Prophet Moses, who is also highly revered by Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike. Jesus fulfilled the Prophesy, but left precious few new rules for how to live and how to structure a society based on the principles of Scripture. So there was a rules gap, an information dearth. The Seal of the Prophets brought a final teaching, to tie all the disparate teachings from the past into a single, comprehensive, and final set of rules. So to Muslims there can be no new Prophets.

An interesting example of this is the Muslim image of the "end times," which in many ways is similar to mainstream Christians. In it, Jesus goes out in the world to raise the dead and fly through the air blasting demons with lighting bolts. Mohamed can't do that; he's a human man, given the most important job in history, he has no physical capability to commit Miracles or fire lighting bolts, raise the dead, or battle demons. The see Jesus on the Right Hand of God, his True Son, and the one fighting the devil in the flesh; and Mohamed they see on the Left Hand of God, his esteemed General, giving orders to the field solders from Heaven. He can't leave Heaven to fight in the flesh, because he's Human, and dead. He has no Earthly body to inhabit, only his Spirit body in the land of God.

I'm secular and not part of any of these sects, indeed my meta-physics are more logical positivist, but it is worth knowing the major beliefs that people hold in the world around you.

It is really worth understanding also that the Muslim prohibition on images of Mohamed is not based on perceived insults to him; it is actually based on what Jesus said; "do not call me good; only God is good." Images lead to veneration, and Prophets are not to be venerated; that is the path of idol worship. Not even God's own Son may be praised! All praise must go to God, all veneration must go to God. So the people getting upset a niche group not well supported by the theology whose name they adopt. Also, the strict parts of Sharia explicitly only apply in the perceived Muslim Nation; they do not have their root in commandments for all humans to follow, they are things that community was commanded to follow and implement in their own areas. So it is theologically reasonable for Muslims in Saudi Arabia to impose strict Sharia. But it is theologically not supportable to engage in violence in non-Muslim lands to enforce a prohibition on veneration of Prophets; and indeed, sarcastic and insulting cartoons are poor examples of veneration.

Re:Another blaming of the victims (Striesand Effec

[steelfood]

their religion actually does mandate capital punishment ... unlike any other modern religion.

Biased much?

The main religious text of every Abrahamic religion promotes violence and killing. The Old Testament is still cited by fundamental Christians (see the U.S.) and Jews (see Israel) to legitimize their violent acts. It may not necessarily be violence to other religions, but it's still violence. (I don't know the other religious texts nearly as well so I can't really speak for them, but I'm certain some non-Abrahamic religions promote some form of religious violence in their text as well.)

But the mainstream Jews and Christians have moved away from the extremes of their ideology and on to more moderate viewpoints. They're still picking and choosing the passages to interpret and follow, but now they're picking the less extreme passages and interpreting them in more moderate ways. The fundamentalists in Christianity and Judiasm are marginalized, and given little to no attention (with the exceptions being the fundamental population of Christians in the U.S. and Jews in Israel, and even then, they're kept in check by equally loud or louder moderate voices).

Muslim extremism is still very much in the limelight of their religion. The extreme viewpoints are constantly in the news, constantly being talked about. Hell, the most wealthy, powerful, and famous Muslims, who often act as role models for many other Muslims, are all extremists. Look at the leaders of Saudi Arabia or Iran, who are clearly extremists. Extremism is given significant attention. There are entire political parties dedicated to extreme interpretations of the Koran. And even if they're discouraged from the extremes, Muslims are exposed to it from youth. Hell, we're all exposed to Muslim extremism from youth.

That is the difference. That is where Islam is currently at, not at the opposite end of "modern religions" but merely a few centuries behind. Islam is currently where Christianity was a few hundred years ago, and is where Judiasm was a thousand years ago. The big question is how to get everybody to reach the points of moderation that Christianity and Judiasm are at. How do you marginalize the extremists?

Denouncing the religion as bad, as you are doing, will not serve those ends. Continuing to bring to attention the violent aspects of the Muslim faith is exactly what people don't do to Christianity and Judiasm (or any other religion for that matter). Implying that it should be gone, as you are doing, is no different than a Muslim person trying to get rid of you for being non-Muslim.

In fact, I'll go a little further and say that the perspective you've taken is exactly the perspective of Muslim extremists. The only difference between you and a terrorist is you haven't quite gotten there. You're still only talking about how bad it is, rather than doing anything about it. Why? I don't know. Maybe you're suppressing that ultimate conclusion to keep your morality. Maybe you're living too comfortable a life and don't want to lose your lifestyle. Maybe you're a coward and trying to incite other people to do what you can't. Maybe it's a combination of multiple factors.

That is, of course, the solution. You can't exactly make people cowards, but you can allow them better lives, and promote less extreme versions of their ideology. You can promote the moderate aspects instead of putting the entire religion of Islam on the defensive. You can denounce government leaders or religious leaders who hold extreme viewpoints, and maybe not prop them up as allies or business partners. You can help make the extremists poor and the moderates wealthy, the extremists weak and the moderates powerful, thereby setting role models who are moderate rather than extreme. These things will help, maybe not right away, but over the course of a generation or two, things will change.

What you're saying and trying to imply will not.

Re:Really?

[BlackHawk-666]

Here's a few to get you started, cut and paste from that link I gave you.

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
        Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches
        You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
        "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers
        A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad
        Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents
        1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
        2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery
        If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Death for Fornication
        A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Death to Followers of Other Religions
        Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers
        They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Kill False Prophets
        If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
        Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Re:Mohammed

[Marginal Coward]

You make some interesting points, especially this:

Images lead to veneration, and Prophets are not to be venerated; that is the path of idol worship. Not even God's own Son may be praised! All praise must go to God, all veneration must go to God. So the people getting upset a niche group not well supported by the theology whose name they adopt.

I read something similar on CNN. But that leaves those of us on the outside wondering why anyone would find it so offensive that someone else had made an image of Mohamed. Apparently, there is no known image of him drawn from life, so any depiction must be a work of imagination. Therefore, an image only becomes "an image of Mohammed" because one puts a "Mohammed" label on it - much as we've seen on the clever little textual pictures of him in this thread. And from the outside, the zeal we've seen applied to this - to the point of murder - looks like nothing less than the very veneration of a man that's it's supposed to be preventing.

I can understand the idea that someone finds an unflattering image related to one's beliefs to be offensive. But we in America value freedom of religion (and are therefore willing to pay the price of granting same to others), whereas in other value systems, freedom of religion would be seen as something that's explicitly wrong - or maybe even evil.

So, is that's what's going on here? Is perhaps a prohibition against making images of Mohammed right in one value system, whereas freedom of expression is right in another? If so, it's hard to see how two diametrically opposed views could ever be reconciled among all us folks who are stuck living together here on Planet Earth.

Re:Another blaming of the victims (Striesand Effec

[DamnOregonian]

That was much easier with Christianity, because those things are not attributed to Him in the scripture — nor to any of His prophets.

This is pure bullshit. Are you aware what Deuteronomy *is*, and who Moses is claimed to *be*? There are plenty of sects of Christianity that absolutely take Mosaic Law, as given by Moses (God's Prophet) to be law, and are displeased that modern society allows their wives to cheat on them and live.

On contrast, the Koran is the verbatim word of God.

This is actually only true in the same way that some Christian sects consider the old and new Testaments to be the Word as inspired by Him.
If you've read the Quran, you'd be well aware it's not the verbatim word of God any more than the other main Abrahamic books are.

Also, even the "unedited" Christianity (with its "leaving Caesar's to Caesar") was still compatible with the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, whereas Islam (with theocracy being the only acceptable way of government) is not.

You literally are a mouthpiece for right-wing Islamophobic stereotypes. This is, again, no different than the other major Abrahamic religions.
And in literally no even marginally strict Christian sect is that which is rendered unto Caesar supreme to that which is rendered unto God. ie, Biblical Supremecy, as Christians who believe in that line of thinking call it. Yes, the Bible comes with a Supremecy Clause, you just only read half of it.

Like any Abrahamic religion, how barbaric you are comes down to which verses you decide to interpret. Secular Islamic governments and societies used to be common, and still exist to a point today. There are real reasons for the cultural reset that has occurred in much of the former Caliphate territories, and guess what- it's not the religion.

I think if you look for something else that correlates with the regions with problems, you'll find that something else correlates better with the phenomenon of terrorism and religious extremism than Islam.

Re:Appeasement will only bring disaster

[penguinoid]

Self-censorship in response to threats is not appeasement, it is rewarding violent behavior. Any publication which self-censors upon receiving a threat is doing a disservice to their readers, to other publications, and to themselves. The expected result of doing whatever anyone who threatens you asks, is that more people will threaten you more often.

Re:Another blaming of the victims (Striesand Effec

[david_thornley]

At least some Christians are of the opinion that God and the Bible tell them how to live, and that means accepting secular power structures. Jesus told people to pay their taxes, and he also told them that money is ultimately worthless, and the only lasting reward is from obeying God. The Biblical supremacy clause works just fine with a halfway reasonable non-religious government.