For your consideration: Submission by chrisisall

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

For your consideration: Submission

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Sunday, February 12, 2006 20:40
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 984
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 8:06 AM

The 10 minute film that got the film-maker killed.
An absolute slap in the face of devout fundimentalist Muslim wife abusers, I must say.

I can see why they'd be crabbed.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=846339861805446088&q=submissio
n+Van+Gogh

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 4:14 PM

CHRISISALL

I really hope someone here takes a look at this...
AHHHCHOOO*bump*
Bless ya!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 6:35 PM

DREAMTROVE

It strikes me that what passes for zealous rage might actually be a meticulously calculated strategy. Leaving aside the discouraging factor for a minute, that if you kill people who oppose islam, others might be afraid to, there's a less subtle point. If you kill someone who makes a short film, you stop them from making a sweeping epic drama about the struggle of muslim women ten years from now that millions of people may see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 9, 2006 8:30 AM

CHRISISALL

But they wouldn't DARE bomb Hollywood!!

It's a mythical land Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 12, 2006 5:52 AM

MILAGROBEAN

I'm surprised, with all the vehement discussion on other threads, no one is commenting on this film. I've pasted a link to an interview w/ Hirsi Ali, the filmmaker, politician, and courageous woman, who continues to speak out even with death threats piling up on her head.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/07/hirsi_ali/index.html

Here's an article about her and the Dutch reaction to Theo Van Gogh's death.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/11/60minutes/main679609.shtml

One can debate the relative merits of Islam and Christianity for 100 years and then some. And certainly the oppression of women is not restricted to Islam. But any religion/culture/worldview that believes women are inferior human beings and condones the murder and rape of their mothers and sisters will not be getting kudos or "understand it from their point of view" empathy from this small corner of the world. Do any of you find this a major stumbling block?

I used to go to CCD with friends of mine when I was a teenager. I was raised a Unitarian Universalist and was curious about other religions. The lay teacher welcomed me. The group was in the middle of putting together a youth Mass. It was creative and fun and holy. Well, when the priest nixed the participation of the girls (ideas ok, being up there on Sunday, no way) I was out of there. And I wasn't even threatened with death!

milagrobean

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 12, 2006 6:20 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I really hope someone here takes a look at this...

I’ve seen it before. The Muslim culture has some serious problems, not the least of them is their treatment of women, and the barbaric reaction of certain broad segments to anyone who disputes their religious opinions. But this is not news.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 12, 2006 8:53 AM

FLETCH2

Does beg one question that actually has Firefly tie-ins.

We know that they have things "wrong" with them. Do we attampt to "fix" it (ie meddle with their culture) or do we tolerate them even though some of them pose a threat?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 12, 2006 12:41 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Does beg one question that actually has Firefly tie-ins.

We know that they have things "wrong" with them. Do we attempt to "fix" it (ie meddle with their culture) or do we tolerate them even though some of them pose a threat?

Interesting idea, Fletch.
I'd say, cultures that we disagree with, no.
Cultures that oppress their people....no.
Cultures that kill their people, a qualified yes (qualification being: if their people want to be killed, then we should stay out of it).

We can't "fix" everybody's problems (we have enough of our own right here to deal with), but I'd say socially condoned murder is the line we draw at which 'cultural differences' moves into barbaric and brutal sub-human behaviour.

Not that I'm judging anyone

"The line must be drawn here, NOW!!" Picardisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 12, 2006 12:52 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
We can't "fix" everybody's problems (we have enough of our own right here to deal with), but I'd say socially condoned murder is the line we draw at which 'cultural differences' moves into barbaric and brutal sub-human behaviour.

That makes a lot of sense, and I think it is a line that Joss intended to draw in Firefly as well. There is a line between meddling with their culture and defending ourselves.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 12, 2006 3:38 PM

DREAMTROVE

Fletch,

I don't think this is the case. There are a few people who seek to 'fix' Islam, but that's a disasterously bad idea. I think there are basically two rules that societies ought to abide by that are very easy to convince pretty much everyone of, without really changing their society:

1. Don't kill the rest of us. If your society is violently on the offensive against everyone else, everyone else will likely be violently offensive against you, since no one is in a majority, this is bad for everyone.

2. Every society should have one freedom, and that's all it needs: the freedom to leave. If a society has the freedom of its citizens to leave, then yes, ultimately it will have to treat its citizens well enough that they don't want to leave. But this does not involve *us* telling *them* how to fix it, it will just fix itself.

In argument to someone who would say "but this alters our society" I say "your society was altering anyway." If a society doesn't have freedom to leave, then the people who hate your society are now trapped inside it, and they are going to hate it more and more, and they are going to work from within to destroy your society.

Salman Rushdie really does very little damage to Islam. He left, and yapped about what was wrong with Islam which was taken in very well by western jewish intellectuals, who ate it up, but were not dissuaded from their faith because they were already not muslims, and unlikely to become so.

By contrast, the Soviet Union was systematically undone from the inside by people who wanted capitalism, but couldn't get it. This started really in Eastern Europe and worked it's way east into Russia. But if the Soviets had allowed these people to leave, they would be hating the communists from the west, preaching their views on the evils of the USSR to an eager, and probably paying, western audience. This would have not only meant that they would not have destroyed the Soviet Union, but that the Soviets would have had to have evolved in some way that would make the iron curtain European actually want to stay.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 12, 2006 8:12 PM

FLETCH2

Well it's an interesting theory. In the Soviet case I think people picking it appart from the inside was the only way it could have happened without a war. I quite like how that turned out.

I'm generally against meddling but you have to ask what happens when someone meddles with you, do you have a right to meddle back?

Case in point this Danish cartoon issue. Even allowing for the fact that it was probably not a smart thing to publish it the fact remains that it was drawn by a none Muslim in a none Muslim country. What Muslims there were there were refugees accepted into Denmark as an act of kindness. What happens in Denmark should be Denmark's business and theirs alone. If Danish Muslims want to complain, they have that option in a free society, but it's not really anyone outside the country's affair. All this violence, threats of bombs and hostage taking _is_ an attempt to coerse and meddle in Denmark's culture by imposing Muslim law on a none Muslim country. The fact that this is done by a rabble in the street and not at the sharp point of a cruise missle is down to the lack of missles and not the intent. I'm pretty sure if they had a means of striking Denmark directly some nut would.

It is not a question of them not meddling with us if we dont meddle with them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 12, 2006 8:40 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Well it's an interesting theory. In the Soviet case I think people picking it appart from the inside was the only way it could have happened without a war. I quite like how that turned out.

I really agree.

Quote:
I'm generally against meddling but you have to ask what happens when someone meddles with you, do you have a right to meddle back?

This is a classic legal theory question, and the classic answer is you can meddle in their affairs only to the extent that it interferes in their ability to meddle in yours. That's just a stock answer, I haven't thought it through. I suspect that there is some leeway there, but logically it should not extend to telling them how to treat their women, or how they should worship Allah.

Quote:
Case in point this Danish cartoon issue. Even allowing for the fact that it was probably not a smart thing to publish it the fact remains that it was drawn by a none Muslim in a none Muslim country.

I assume you mean non. There are plenty of muslims in Denmark, and sure, this was undoubtedly not crafted by one of them. On the otherhand, it's no offence to mid east muslims by a non-muslim, it was carried there by muslims, it was printed for danes by danes as part of danish society, in which some muslims are willing participants, but they knew getting in that it was danish society, and not friendly territory.

If a gay jiggalo is in my town seducing young boys, it's an affront to my town, where people actually wouldn't take kindly to it. But if he is doing it in Brazil, we might disapprove, but it's really no offense to us, directly. If we take it as such, we are really distorting the idea of our individual rights, and de facto rewriting those rights to say "we rule the world." In this case the muslims in question who are rioting had to have the information transported to them by other mulsims, who do not only not rule the world, they don't rule denmark.

Quote:
What Muslims there were there were refugees accepted into Denmark as an act of kindness. What happens in Denmark should be Denmark's business and theirs alone. If Danish Muslims want to complain, they have that option in a free society, but it's not really anyone outside the country's affair.

Whoa. I think I just said this. We're actually on the same page here.

Quote:
All this violence, threats of bombs and hostage taking _is_ an attempt to coerse and meddle in Denmark's culture by imposing Muslim law on a none Muslim country. The fact that this is done by a rabble in the street and not at the sharp point of a cruise missle is down to the lack of missles and not the intent. I'm pretty sure if they had a means of striking Denmark directly some nut would.

Lol, and also true.

Quote:
It is not a question of them not meddling with us if we dont meddle with them.

But, again, to what extent. The logical first step is someone took the cartoons out of denmark and passed them around along with propaganda about the Danes being evil, to incite violence against the state of Denmark, which resulted in acts of violence against Danish embassies, which are technically speaking, part of the state of Denmark, thereby making it an act of treason, since the initiators of the series of events were residents of Denmark.

The key point here is that I mean the muslims who passed around the cartoons and propoganda about evil Danes, as these were the people who wanted to induce violence against Denmark, where they happened to live. The cartoonists were not attempting to insight violence against Denmark, it was an unintentional consequence of their actions.

So, the muslims in question should be tried for treason, and then the rest of the muslims can see that this is how this situation unravels, and then can have the option of leaving Denmark, a place where muslim fiats are unlikely to be bowed to, and where attacking Denmark is frowned upon. If Muslims choose to stay and follow the rules of Denmark and not set fire to cars, then so be it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE