Ugh, DU. The anti-Muslim sentiment here is getting to me.

[cali]

The disparagement of Muslims as uncivilized, as backward, as violent, without an attempt to understand context is depressing.

The self-righteous "we don't react that way" superiority thing is unwarranted and reflects something ugly. Why not ask why we don't react that way?

Of course, it's not everyone posting. It''s probably not the majority but it's a sizable minority.

The violence isn't justifiable but the rage is understandable. It's not like the U.S. is some kind of pure as the driven snow innocent abroad.

[treestar]

1. We just aren't as religious

and even for all the posturing of fundies, they know they are under no real threat of Sharia Law. That's projection.

It's not the movie alone, it's the US and western presence there. And the greater identification with religion. We'd react that way too perhaps if there was some real threat of a Muslim nation taking us over, being present in our country and being militarily stronger. It has more to do with US domination than religion itself.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

61. The US is one of the most religious countries in the world. It just has better police & civil order.

[nanabugg]

134. No, we just practice "organized rage" called wars, occupation, drones and the like. nt

[randome]

136. Which apparently had nothing to do with the Benghazi riot.

I don't recall any of the mob mentioning those things.

[aquart]

142. This is Planet Earth, not heaven.

There is nothing we can teach the Middle East about killing.
They've been brilliant at it for ten thousand years.

[Puregonzo1188]

158. And what percentage of the killing in the Middle East has been done by us or are allies?

And what about Europe? Can we teach them something about killing? They seem to have been brilliant at it for ten thousand years as well, as has Latin America, Asia, etc.

[renie408]

177. NO, we are fat, rich, lazy and can't be bothered.

It goes back to William Cobbett and his quote: I defy you to agitate any fellow with a full stomach.


Or possibly in this case:I defy you to agitate any fellow with a full stomach, good internet access and cable TV with 200 channels.

In a strange way I am kind of not kidding when I say that the people who were rioting wouldn't have done so if they had been home watching Honey Boo Boo.

[tama]

152. The black spot

is the money-religion of US, which is far far more fundamentalist and dangerous than Islam or any other "traditional" religion.

I know "religion" is here rhetorics and semantics, but if we talk about negative fundamentalism and compare cultures, we gotta speak also about money fundamentalism of US.

[Progressive dog]

2. You lost me when you said "the rage is understandable"

No it isn't. This is taking the defense of the mobs in these countries too far.

[HiPointDem]

10. i'd be enraged if saudi arabia was randomly bombing people in the us, canada, mexico, etc.

i think you would be too.

[KansDem]

176. I was enraged when they murdered over 3,000 of my fellow Americans...

...on 9/11.

But, apparently the Bushistas thought differently...

[Comrade Grumpy]

201. Were you enraged when the US ginned up a proxy war in Afghanistan?

Killing tens of thousands and laying the groundwork for Al Qaeda?

Were you enraged when the US blindly backed the oppression of the Palestinians by the Israelis?

Were you enraged when the US cozied up to theocratic dictators in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states?

911 didn't come out of nowhere, and neither did the Benghazi attack.

[KansDem]

208. You'll get no argument out of me...

I knew something was awry when information began leaking out about how the Bush Administration "acted" and "reacted" leading up to and during the 9/11 attacks.

I attended a forum in 2002 in which Canadian Barrie Zwicker laid it all out:

Facts can be nasty...

[mzteris]

202. THEY? "They, who"?

The entire Muslim community or a group of misguided, ignorant disaffected fundamentalists? (You know, kind of like the misguided ignorant disaffected "christian" fundamentalists who like to bomb abortion clinics.)

[KansDem]

206. "They?"

Why the family friends and business partners of the Bush Family...

[eqfan592]

15. Eh, I can't say I agree.

I can understand the anger felt without condoning the violence or feeling it is justifiable.

[ljm2002]

25. There was no "defense of the mobs" in the OP...

...none. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

[Progressive dog]

57. It was implied

"we don't react that way" What way would this refer to?
I have seen very little "anti-Muslim" sentiment on DU. There is some anger over the specific Muslims who attacked our embassies and killed Americans. There may be some consternation over the meme on the part of some here that these attacks are due not to what the attackers claim, but over other actions of the USA.

[cali]

75. all you had to do was ask.

it refers to the anger and offense taken, not to the violence. Most of those protesting are not violent. And there's been a shitload of anti-Muslim sentiment here. It says quite a bit about YOU that you can't see ugly bigotry when it smacks you in the face, dear.

[awoke_in_2003]

92. Cali wasn't saying "we don't react this way"...

she was pointing out that people are using that rationale in their arguments.

[lunasun]

165. Here is one IMO

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1326434

[roguevalley]

39. someone once said that when poverty and oppression kills hope

Other things become precious. They believe Allah lives in the words.hence their fury. That one remaining thing they have is being sullied. It should not be such a mystery.

[abelenkpe]

67. Yes it is

[movonne]

89. How about the rage we showed when 911 happened...all

countries have rage...it is just what it is...no matter how bad their country is, it is their country and they will defend it against intruders...also we are all manipulated by propaganda...

[Progressive dog]

133. That is not the same thing

The rage here is based on a junk film that harmed no one.

[dkf]

3. The question is why are they violent. People here get enraged all the time.

Some people here get really mad too, like murderers of abortion doctors. But we don't excuse their violence. We condemn it.

[Kindly Refrain]

16. US citizens excuse violence all the time

Who in this country really gives a damn that we are droning innocent people and leveling whole cities in the Middle East? Not many I can assure you.

[ljm2002]

31. According to many reports...

...there were a small number of people involved in the violence. There were people genuinely enraged by the movie, that they had not seen -- ergo, it stands to reason they were whipped into rage by their countries' versions of rabid fundamentalists.

Also according to many reports, the unruly demonstrations were used by more well-prepared teams, possibly Al-Qaeda, as a cover to engage in their deadly operations.

Now of course we can't know, certainly not this early in the situation; and given how much disinformation is spread around on all sides, perhaps never. But what we can know, is it is wrong to paint an entire population with the broad brush of being backwards and violent based on the actions of a few.

In fact, by that standard, one would have to say Americans are a violent lot, given how much carnage we have caused around the world with our trumped-up war in Vietnam, our "Shock and Awe" in Iraq, and the like.

[dkf]

45. It's sounding to me like Libya had nothing to do with riots.

That was a plain terrorist attack.

It's the riots breaking out across the Middle East that is concerning. Also their demands for us to curtail our rights is a problem.

[ljm2002]

60. Yes, the widespread riots are concerning...

...and as for any demands for us to curtain our own rights, it's not a problem as long as we remember who we are as a people.

Which I grant you can get difficult, as even some on DU would seek to outlaw that silly piece of tripe.

We as a country have already given up many of our rights over the last decade. I would hope we will never consider further degrading our wonderful right of free speech due to how a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists react to things. One has only to consider that they reacted similarly to Salmon Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses, or those Danish cartoons that depicted Mohammed.

As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to demands that we curtail our free speech, they can shove it where the sun don't shine.

[ToxMarz]

91. They're not exactly demanding we curtail our rights

They don't really understand our rights to free speech and freedom of religion. They have never lived in that type of society. These things are under the control of religious and governmental authorities in their countries, so they mistaken believe the same is true here. They feel something should be done about a vile and hateful film released from the US, not realizing why it is we let it stand and believe it is right to do so. To say "their demands for us to curtail our rights" is rather insidious.

[oberliner]

195. There are riots over this video in countries with free speech and freedom of religion

Australia for example.

[ToxMarz]

211. And?

My comment was to the original conflicts that came from countries that don't. They are now spreading among Muslims throughout the world. It was a general statement as too what I believe to be a part of why in their mind they blame the Nation instead of just the films makers. You can find individual anecdotes to contradict any generality. Did they carry signs or make demands that "Americans must give up their rights". That is just a way of trivializing their outrage by saying they are worse because they want to take away our freedoms. Where have we heard those accusations before. I'm not defending their actions, but if you don't try to understand things how can you ever solve a problem/crisis. They are pissed (as was the intent of the film, mission accomplished) and their demonstrations (speaking out) are turning violent. Not like there has never been a demonstration turn violent in the US. What they are doing is wrong and should be condemned, but to try to vilify them by claiming their specific intent is to take away our rights (which the thought of instantly outrages us) is disingenuous.

[oberliner]

212. And they understand the distinction between the nation and the video

Last edited Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Australians would not be confused on that score, would they?

[ToxMarz]

215. No one said they were confused...

They don't have to be confused to protest. Only angry.

But if they are confused, maybe they are confused by this:

Freedom of speech by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

Jump to Australia‎: Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional or statutory declaration of rights, with the exception of political ...
....This freedom of political communication is not a broad freedom of speech as in other countries, but rather a freedom whose purpose is only to protect political free speech. This freedom of political free speech is a shield against government prosecution, not a shield against private prosecution (civil law). It is also less a causal mechanism in itself, rather than simply a boundary which can be adjudged to be breached. Despite the court's ruling, however, not all political speech appears to be protected in Australia and several laws criminalise forms of speech that would be protected in other democratic countries such as the United States.

[oberliner]

216. But why protest at the US consulate there?

Someone from Australia would be likely to understand that the US government has nothing to do with this stupid video.

[sufrommich]

50. You're fooling yourself if you think that the relative comfort

of living in the first world doesn't contribute to our level of tolerance.

[randome]

52. Just as education and prosperity contribute to it.

You make a good point.

[dkf]

73. Actually this kind of behavior isn't unique to the middle east...look at gang violence.

We tend not to do it on a societal level though. The occupy movement was the closest we came in my lifetime but they contained the violence.

[BlueMTexpat]

108. Very astute point! eom

[nolabear]

5. It seems to me to be a virtual parallel to what's going on in the Middle East.

All people are capable of this, of getting terribly upset when the things that we believe in are threatened. It's not just "belief", it's a sense of our very selves being threatened, the things we organize our understanding of reality around. The people who are rioting are not rioting because they are Muslims; that's only the precipitant. These are people in an exceedingly unstable world trying desperately to find something to stabilize themselves and so they hold tight to it and project an enemy they can rally in opposition to. It's exactly the same thing that made Obama make the "god and guns" comment that freaked out our own destabilized factions. He was right aout that need to cling, but no one wants to recognize that. Far too scary.

DU is in a period of instability. We feel threatened by the upcoming election. We're shown these constant images of small groups of people with rocks and fire and being told it's just a step further to nukes and germ warfare. It's not. We're freaked out about the religious fundamentalists in our own country who really are trying to limit our freedom and for various reasons don't take the interesting, remarkable and good things about religion into account (I say this as an athiest). Even if our cognitive brains know better, our limbic brains are being told we need to blame someone and assure one another that they are lesser.

It's a problem, for sure. It can divide and destroy us. It can cause all kinds of peripheral damage that, because we're not in visual contact, we aren't aware of or have the luxury of ignoring. Honestly, in my opinion, when we freak out and start slamming others' belief systems (not what they DO to us; that's another thing entirely), the terrorists win.

[randome]

6. I'm sorry but forcing women to defer to men.

Beheading people who aren't sufficiently religious.

Attacking and murdering innocent people because of a film.

I'm sorry but none of that fits into my definition of 'civilized'. I call it as I see it.

[HiPointDem]

12. i'm sorry but bombing people because they have different customs doesn't fit my definition of

civilized either.

[randome]

27. We're bombing people because of their customs now?

I wasn't aware of that.

[Nye Bevan]

53. You don't remember when we bombed Saudi Arabia for not allowing women to drive?

Me neither.

[randome]

54. I would be more in favor of economic blockades and other measures to right that wrong.

We let the 'little' stuff slip by. If we want to be the world's police, then we should be so for better reasons than resource accrual.

OTOH, it's a complicated world.

[lunasun]

166. we want to be the world's police??????

[randome]

175. Do you think advocating for equal rights is NOT a good use of American influence?

I'd say it was a better use than fighting over oil.

[HiPointDem]

59. that's not why we're doing it but it's certainly one of the PR techniques used to make it ok in the

eyes of the public.

[randome]

65. Yeah, it's easy to sweep it all under the rug when it's 'over there' instead of 'here'.

Cowardly George Bush put that term into play.

When it happens half a world away, it's easy to forget it's happening at all.

[HiPointDem]

71. sweep what under the rug, bombs?

[randome]

76. Sweep away the complex reasons we are involved in ANY country's business.

Sometimes it's resource accrual. Sometimes it's flexing the might of our military. And sometimes it's for human rights. The real reasons get lost in the fog of activity is all I was saying.

Most of us don't delve into the details because it's not happening to us.

[Puregonzo1188]

159. When has our military ever gotten involved for human rights?

[randome]

161. I didn't say our miltary specifically was involved.

I said we stick our noses into other countries' business but sometimes it's for human rights issues.

Sometimes that's done through diplomats. America is not perfect but neither is the Mideast.

However, the military did help stop the Balkan conflict. We did help with the Arab Spring where possible, including in Libya.

[liberallibral]

129. Bombing them because of their customs??? Oh my goodness....

So silly...... Glad you're not part of the Obama Administration...

[HiPointDem]

130. glad you're not a comedy writer, either. despite the smiley laugh track, you're not funny.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1350471

[snooper2]

149. We don't bomb them because of customs, it's mostly resources like oil..

So your argument is a strawman

[HiPointDem]

162. no we just rationalize & justify it in those terms. which is what all the "oooh, look at all these

awful things muslims do" bullshite is about.

[Logical]

155. LOL, at one time people said the same thing about slavery. Brilliant! Congrats!

[eqfan592]

19. There are people here who would fit that discription.

I would simply caution you to not paint with a broad brush.

[cbayer]

22. Good advice, eqfan.

[eqfan592]

26. Thanks :)

Good to run into you somewhere outside of the Religion forum! lol

[randome]

34. I'm not sure what part of Post #6 is advocated by DUers.

Although some uncivilized segments of our society WANT women to be subservient, we have a lot of judicial infrastructure that tries to prevent it.

[eqfan592]

64. I meant here as in the US, not the DU.

Just to clarify.

[randome]

66. Got it! Sorry!

[awoke_in_2003]

93. Which is why we need...

keep republicans out of the Oval Office. Eight years of Bush appointing judges is damage that will take a while to overcome. Once the courts are overtaken by nutcases judges, this country will be lost.

[randome]

102. Yeah, Republicans today ARE a mob.

We don't need that kind of uncivilized behavior, either. Fortunately, because of demographics and economics and climate change and Obama, they have started their decline into irrelevancy.

It's still a long way to get there but at least it's started.

[Jakes Progress]

21. Buncha guys on faux agree with you.

No one in the thread said that those things were right. But that is not Islam. It is some people using Islam to justify their own personal behavior. Is America uncivilized because the baptist church calls for women to be subservient to their husbands? Is America uncivilized because some in-bred goofs hold klan rallies? Of course America doesn't have anyone who attacks and murders innocent people - unless they are black or gay that is.

What you are calling is what you see through a very narrow lens.

[randome]

30. "Calling" for women to be subservient and "forcing" them to be are 2 different things.

We have uncivilized behavior here in America, too. Do you really think I condone murdering abortion providers?

Perhaps I should have stated "uncivilized behavior" instead of simply "uncivilized".

[MNBrewer]

97. Maybe I missed the mobs murdering abortion providers here...

How many were murdered?

[randome]

100. Plenty of home-grown mobs to encourage murder.

George Tiller is one who was murdered. But not by a mob.

[MNBrewer]

107. So there are no mobs murdering abortion providers?

I thought we were just as bad!!!1!

[randome]

110. No. We don't have mobs murdering abortion providers.

But it is uncivilized behavior to condone -even encourage- individuals to do so.

[MNBrewer]

118. And what's even LESS civilized is to take those people up on their invitation to do so

When we start seeing mobs of people exiting megachurches after Sunday services and heading to the abortion clinics to chant slogans, burn the place down and kill those inside we might have SOME sort of equivalency. Until then it's pretty much a false equivalency.

[Jakes Progress]

139. Your problem isn't your terminology,

It is your broad brush application of terms. If you believe that all muslims agree with the ignorant crowds, then you are uninformed and should do a little soul searching about where your need to hate comes from.

The mobs in Egypt that follow the mass media hate drops are no different than the mobs that actually buy the crap the tea party is putting out. It is just possible that your views about the world outside your door is being colored by lack of information and just a little xenophobia.

[randome]

145. I'd understand your post if you responded to one of my earlier ones.

But how does 'uncivilized behavior' demonstrate my hatred and xenophobia?

Especially when I apply it equally to the western world?

The Middle Eastern mobs ARE different from the Tea Party mobs. So far as I know, no Tea Party mob had rioted and killed innocent people.

That's not xenophobic, that's observation.

[Jakes Progress]

157. Peace. I hope you understand some day.

The world depends on understanding. But it requires the ability to question oneself to get there. Here's hoping.

First you have to learn about what is happening in these areas. The murders in Libya weren't done by the "Middle Eastern mob" that you see on your main source of information. Television loves spectacle. Those murders were premeditated and planned by terrorists. Is it your contention that all those in the Middle East are terrorists? The terrorists flamed the mob of gullible and not informed people who distracted while they did their job. If you don't think the tea party creates murders, you need to ask Gabby Giffords how she feels about that.

Check the coverage of those still "rioting" in Egypt. Gangs of hooligan teenagers who love throwing rocks at the police. Of course that never happens in your country. You know the one with all the decent people.

Why do you lump all Middle Easterners into the same group. That is what the uneducated and easily duped people in the mobs in the Middle East are doing. They have decided that all Americans support the film that has been used to fan their xenophobia. Please see if you can see what you are doing?

[riderinthestorm]

205. Ambassador Susan Rice: Libya Attack Not Premeditated

Source: ABC News

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”

“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. American Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.

“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/ambassador-susan-rice-libya-attack-not-premeditated/

[Jakes Progress]

218. Trusting the source with an American name

instead of the on-the-site source with a "furrin" sounding name.

Okay.

[roguevalley]

40. enforced poverty and drones torture thats ok? i would riot too.

[randome]

46. Funny how none of the protests mention those things.

The Benghazi attack is believed to have been started -or enflamed- by an Al Qaeda group.

And as for torture? No one does it better than some fundamentalist crazies!

Poverty? I'm not sure the U.S. is keeping people poor when the capitalist system would prefer to see a greater number of consumers?

I'm against the drone wars but, again, that word does not seem to have much to do with the recent protests.

[roguevalley]

74. the rage is the root of everything and we ignore it at our peril

[awoke_in_2003]

94. On the flip side...

most of us here do not speak Arabic, so we depend on the media, owned by a few elite corporations, to tell us what those protest signs and chants are saying.

[randome]

98. All of which can be easily corrected thanks to the Internet.

[abelenkpe]

70. "I'm sorry but forcing women to defer to men."

Because our own fundamentalists and even some republican lawmakers don't want to do the same here?

[randome]

72. Some do want to do that.

Fortunately, we have a judicial infrastructure in place that makes it very difficult. We have our own 'uncivilized behavior' to deal with. Much to the shame of the rest of us.

[BlueMTexpat]

114. Those who were murdered in Libya

were murdered in a terrorist attack, not "because of a film." The timing of the film seems to have been co-incidental there.

But the other items that you mentioned also apply to a virulent, vicious rabid and growing minority of people here in the US who belong to the religious right.

So are all Americans "uncivilized" because of that minority?

The OP's point was - not an any way to justify the violence - but to note that at least some here at DU (from your response, you could be one) are tarring whole swathes of people in the world with the same brush and that it unfortunately seems to be "acceptable" to many here at DU simply because those people are Muslim, that it would not be tolerated in the same way if we were talking about other groups of people.

She finds that unacceptable. As do I.

But I have noticed several others here at DU who also find it unacceptable, which is why I am still here.

[randome]

119. I get you.

And I pointed out in another post that I should have said 'uncivilized behavior' instead of simply 'uncivilized'.

Point taken.

[BlueMTexpat]

124. Thanks for the response.

[liberallibral]

128. Agree with Randome!!!

[4th law of robotics]

180. No kidding

the behavior many Muslims exhibit (and the religion is formed around) would not be tolerated or defended if it were Christianity.

If anything people here go out of their way to defend Islam to avoid appearing to be anti-Muslim.

[HiPointDem]

7. kr.

[HappyMe]

8. I find the 'we don't react that way'

thing kind of weird. How many times have there been riots after a sports team wins or loses.

[randome]

9. That's not civilized behavior, either.

And I don't think I've ever seen anyone defending it, either.

[NYC Liberal]

63. But whenever that happens, it too gets condemned/mocked/criticized on here.

[HappyMe]

125. And that is as it should be.

The point being, that is probably the stupidest reason on earth to riot. We are lucky enough to live in a place where the government is pretty stable, soldiers from other countries aren't wandering the streets and we don't have to dodge bombs.

[luvspeas]

11. It's funny how quickly things can get ugly around here...

One minute I feel so much love for people here if somebody's cats need a home, then the next I am completely embarrassed by some posters on here who lump all Muslims as violent and angry and ignorant.

[meow2u3]

13. On DU, it's more anti-fundamentalist sentiment

Between the GOP's war on women in the US and the Islamic and Jewish fundamentalists in the Middle East (including Israel, which is located in the ME), anti-fundamentalist sentiment has reached fever pitch.

[HiPointDem]

17. we're not invading and bombing israel. i rarely see anything here about jewish fundamentalists.

i occasionally see criticism of israel's leadership, but never wholesale criticism of judaism.

unlike the near-weekly wholesale criticism of islam.

[B2G]

14. Happens all the time here with Christians

Does that bother you too?

[patrice]

116. Agree!!! Some people pose as free-thinkers, but their biases are very evident. nt

[MadHound]

18. Sorry, but fundamentalist religious sects of any stripe are, by their very nature, uncivilized.

Doesn't matter whether they are fundamentalist Islamic sects or fundamentalist Christian sects, they are uncivilized. They want to take modern civilization back to a theocratic state.

And yes, fundamentalist Christian sect do react "that way". Think back to the protests over "The Last Temptation of Christ". Movie goers were attacked, a theater was burned, all by Christian fundies. What we see going on in the Mid East now is the same thing, except on a larger scale.

No, neither the violence, or the rage is understandable or justifiable. Normal, civilized people don't become violent or outraged over a badly made movie.

[tosh]

23. Very well stated, MadHound.

[joeybee12]

32. Maybe some countries aren't "civilized" because we have been

killing them for about 100 years simply to get their oil, installing dictators who kill them, and keeping them backwards. Maybe we shouldn't feel so high and mighty since their "uncivilized" nature is largely our fault.

[MadHound]

37. I'm not stating that countries are uncivilized,

But rather fundamentalist religious sects. Please read for content and comprehension rather than the quick snark.

[Whovian]

20. Not anti-muslim here.

Anti religion. Any of them. I consider them superstitions. Not healthy for a civilized world.

[Joe the Revelator]

24. Fuck all religious fundamentalist pricks....

Especially those who resort to violence.

[Cleita]

28. You're right.

It's really nauseating, but not the first time this bigotry has been aired at DU. I remember many flame threads about undocumented immigrants sucking the air of many DUer's space. I'm waiting for the anti-Muslim faction to arrive on this thread and put their prejudices up on line for the world to see.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

29. I blame religious people for a lot of the world's problems. Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc...

The world will never operate as rationally and logically as it should without nuts going around believing in, killing for, and defending fairy tales as fact.

The older I get... the more I am losing all tolerance for religion. It may be due to the fact that I am a semi-closeted atheist in a Christian family and that I was forcefed bullshit for 18 years, but so be it.

My patience is running thin with all of them.

[LiberalLovinLug]

115. I'm with you Comrade

I have almost a mirror upbringing. And I too am getting more and more intolerant of any religion. I think folks like us can understand just how insidious the god worm can install itself in someone. I'm sure you too still have close relatives that are fully ensconced.

As I've grown older, my feelings have moved from annoyance to anger. I have nephews and nieces that my sister and brother-in-law have raised completely shielded from reality. They were sent to private Christian schools from elementary school and now on to Christian Universities so they never be exposed to the rich tapestry of other viewpoints or cultures. They will now marry another indoctrinated spouse and raise new babies to be programed to spread the disease outward. This is no different than a fundamentalist Muslim family in the Middle East, and it is corroding both the East and the West.

[Nye Bevan]

33. Well... Not allowing women to drive, and executing homosexuals,

is kind of a little bit backward, dare I say?

Or is this the kind of anti-Muslim sentiment that gets to you?

Perhaps I should always balance such statements by saying that the Crusades were awful.

BTW do you have any issue at all with the Magic Underwear jokes?

[cbayer]

35. Agree. While specifically attacking extremism of any stripe seems appropriate,

I am seeing far too much broadbrushing. Frankly, it's an acceptable part of the culture here.

[etherealtruth]

36. I find it "offensive" that an opinion frequently floated is ...

.. that "Muslims" approve of this type of thing ... Islam expressly forbids the slaughter of innocents. I acknowledge this as purely anecdotal, the Muslims I know (and know well) are appalled by these murders.

Just as they were horrified and sickened by the act of 9/11

[patrice]

117. I admire their personal, private, honest, and very deep jihad. That's not something that is

frequently characteristic at all of a lot of Christians.

[RegieRocker]

38. A right wing nut is identical in emotional and mental state to

an extremist Muslim. Hell if it wasn't for the labeling of the religion I couldn't tell the difference.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

41. No, US meddling is good! Tax dollars funneled to dictators....

who live like royalty while the people suffer is the American way!

I think many have absolutely no sense of history. And by "history," I mean let's go back AT LEAST 64 years to 1948. These protests aren't solely about an anti-Muslim film.

I'd be enraged too.

And I'm sick of religious nuts, of ALL faiths.

[sufrommich]

42. I tend to think it comes from people who actually

imagine that our christian extremist would not become radicalized if muslim nations were interfering with our election process or bombing us.I'd say that judging from what has happened to this country since christian extremist positions became the positions of a political party,it would be really hard to make the argument that, given the same set of circumstances, we would not have our own mighty taliban to deal with here.

[Deep13]

43. The rage is not understandable.

It only exists if one thinks he has a right to insist others share his religious values. It is only directed at the U.S. govt. if one assumes that the govt. decides what movies can be made.

I know many Muslims. They are all very nice people. When I was in Jordan over the summer they all went out of their way to make sure I have a language class that was at my educational level. I don't believe the rioters represent all or even most Muslim people.

Still, I cannot say the rioting does not reflect the Muslim religion. The whole point of this is that someone, presumably an America, made a movie that offends Islamic values. Now, in fairness, that does not appear to be the whole story. The movie may have been the last straw on top of real or perceived other grievances. The riots seem to be be organized by extremist groups and have been joined by yobs.

Frankly, a lot of Muslim people have to either grow a thicker skin or get a sense of humor. They have to realize there are other religious perspectives in the world and a lot of them are hostile to rival religions. Those people have no duty to shut up. I have not seen the movie, but it does not matter what is in it. It is protected religious expression under the 1st Amendment, the same 1st Amendment that gives Americans the right to be Muslims. Hopefully those expressing themselves violently will realize that en-shah-Allah.

[CBGLuthier]

44. The ones who commit murder over insults are everything you mention and worse.

There is NO CONTEXT for savagery. We may not be innocent but we don't do murder over trivial insults to dead people.

[Speck Tater]

47. I don't see any complaints about anti-Republican sentiment here.

Tolerance has its limits. To be against ANY form of ultra-conservatism seems perfectly reasonable to me. That includes militant Muslims and it includes militant Republicans. Rabid conservatives of all stripes are now and have always been dangerous and it's a matter of self preservation to condemn their violent and dangerous behavior.

[ProSense]

48. There is some bigotry and hypocrisy

On one hand, there are posts praising Hillary and the President's message, and on the other hand, there is condemnation of a people, not just those who carried out these violent acts.

You can't condemn the RW for the anti-Muslim sentiments, and then turn around and express the same thing.

[Whisp]

49. totally agree

if it's different, kill it or condemn it sentiment is puke inducing

don't bother to understand that people are Different and don't hold your own personal values and your own religion/country/whatever probably ain't that hot either looking at it from across oceans and culture.

I quit looking at those threads. Because if DUers can't see this, then the wars and shit we suffer are inevitable to happen forever into the future. If it's different, kill it.

[bhikkhu]

51. The vast majority of muslims wouldn't kill over an insult

the same as the vast majority of christians wouldn't kill over an insult.

In both cases, the numbers who would talk trash and threaten to kill or advocate killing is larger, but even that's a small majority.

The vast majority of people in the world, seeing something like the "innocence of islam" movie, or a klan rally, or a fundamentalist rant, or whatever variety of hate, just think "ah, more of this again - lets go home and get something to eat", or "what foolishness - no good ever comes from stirring up trouble", or "won't they ever learn?", or some variety of that...

The RW would like to convince people that the world is a big scary dangerous place full of evil crazy people. Most people are good, generous, honest, hard-working, etc, - like us.

[Poll_Blind]

55. +1 Needed to be said. nt

PB

[davidthegnome]

56. I agree

Having just wandered over to the Free Republic though, for shits and giggles... the difference was once again made very clear. I saw an "article", posted that described muslims as "illiterate". Somehow I don't think most of them even notice that or would debate the point if they did. One of the differences between the two parties is that democrats will at least try to live in peace. I suspect that the modern republican party would have responded... much differently, to the embassy burning and the murders that took place. Something like "shoot first and aim later."

No, we're sure as hell not innocent... but should the republican party achieve victory, we will instead become guilty of far more than ever in the past.

[randome]

58. That's funny. Many Free Republic posters can't even spell 'illiterate'.

I agree with you. We are not innocent but Republicans would be far worse for us and the world.

[WiffenPoof]

62. Geeze....

Let's see...

We go over to the Middle East and bomb the shit out of it, kill innocent people, rattle our sabers, etc. etc. and these people aren't going to be upset. Just imagine if things were in reverse. Rage? Yeah, I guess so.

-P

[stupidicus]

68. Indeed, imagine a horde of rightwinger Bruce Willises

walking through black neighborhoods with that sign he wore on a street corner in one of the "Die Hards".

Who would get the lion's share of the blame if some of them were to get beat up or killed, the latter whether deliberately or not.

Can you imagine as many lefties pointing towards their race-based inferiority as the proximate cause for it?

Who are we as largely non-muslims, much as most of us aren't blacks, to judge or dictate how insulted they might be?

ANd while blacks in this country may not have a constitutional leg to stand on in that situation if I understand the fighting words doctrine correctly, since when did we rule the world?

United StatesThe fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

[edit] Chaplinsky decisionChaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, had purportedly told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching that he was "a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest and wrote in its decision that

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

[edit] Post-ChaplinskyThe court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969),[3] the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions—Gooding v. Wilson (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans (1974)—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.

In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protester's speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

As an atheist, I'm an equal opportunity religion basher. But imo, the video is the functional international equivalent of fighting words not personally applied, but taken very personally -- obviously.

[Alduin]

69. "The rage is understandable..."

Uh, no. It's not. They're pissed at a shitty B-movie.

There is nothing understandable about that.

I hate all religion, not just Islam.

[cali]

78. no, the film is clearly the spark in the tinder

and yeah, it's pretty understandable that there's a lot of anger at the U.S. and the western world at large, in the Arab and Muslim Worlds. Unjustified wars, the deaths of millions, drone strikes that kill civilians and plenty more, will do that.

[Alduin]

80. Yes...

but so do their totalitarian regime governments.

[BarackTheVote]

88. Not B-film; Z-grade film

And in my opinion, the worse the production values, the more insulting the product :p

[Odin2005]

77. This has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with social backwardness.

One does not see this kind of stuff in, say, Turkey.

[Ohio Joe]

79. "without an attempt to understand context" - What context makes these murders ok?

I can't think of any.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

81. "The violence isn't justifiable but the rage is understandable."

Only if you have lived under state controlled media that would ban a video and assume the rest of the world has the same restrictive system. So if the video exists, the state must have approved it for release.

It wasn't that long ago in our country when we had the Hayes Code where EVERY movie was subject to review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code

Read the list of restrictions.

[bluestateguy]

82. It is fair to criticize rioters

While they represent a minority of Muslim people, their actions warrant criticism and further reveal how religious fanatacism (of any faith) drives people to do evil things.

[cali]

85. no one said it wasn't, but way to miss the point of the op.

[warrprayer]

83. Political Science

[2on2u]

84. +1

[iandhr]

86. What ever flaws the United States has.

We are better then people who riot over a FILM.

There was an article in the the Onion.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/

"Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered,"


No one tried to torch the British Embassy when Monty Python life of Bryan was made. Its regarded as one of the best comedy films ever.


This is hardly the first time this happened. Theo Van Gogh was murdered over a film. The Danish newspaper cartoons, Salman Rushdie book lead ayatollah khomeini to put a fatwa on him. He had to be placed under police protection. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to be under protection when she is in Holland.


The rage is not understandable.

[JNelson6563]

87. That's why I've skipped those threads.

That's republican-style crap that I don't want to read on DU.

I'm glad you said something.

Julie

[greiner3]

95. "It''s probably not the majority but it's a sizable minority. "

How many guesses do I get naming a 'few' of those you speak of?

[BarackTheVote]

96. People DO protest in our country

There were protests outside of "Corpus Christi," and "Life of Brian," and "Last Temptation of Christ"; political protests over the WTO and war, and of course Occupy Wall Street. Rioting after sports events, etc... A person is intelligent, but people in a mob are easily riled-up and sometimes all it takes is one person to throw a garbage can through a window, or start to climb a wall, and then it's just chaos... and this is observable in our country and in the Western world in general (Bloody Sunday, anyone?).

And I really and truly doubt that the VIOLENCE and MURDER was over this movie... I think some terrorist cell saw what was going on and decided to use a slightly out-of-hand protest as cover for what they wanted to do anyway.

I don't blame the movie or the reaction to the movie for what happened. I think the movie is irredeemable tripe from every perspective and as such, I have very little tolerance for its existence and the hurt it does to Muslims. I think they were right to protest it, especially with the disinformation disseminated about its creation. But I don't think that those protests would have become LETHAL if it wasn't for people who already had it in their minds and black hearts to kill Americans.

[lamzydivy]

99. May I suggest "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins?

The first chapter is very relevant.

[cali]

146. I've read it. May I suggest this isn't only or even chiefly about religion?

It's the result of decades of mistreatment. It's the result of overthrowing democratically elected leaders. It's the result of unjust illegal wars that kill hundreds of thousands. It's the result of drones raining down death on civilians. It's the result of colonialism.

religion is a piece of it, but it's more the back breaking straw, the spark in the tinder.

[backscatter712]

150. I agree with this sentiment, and I say that as an atheist and fan of The God Delusion. n/t

[Puregonzo1188]

160. Totally agree. I don't why some DUers can't seem to grasp that this film is just the tip

of the iceberg.

[cali]

169. I've come to belief that some people here don't want to face

the complexities or the role of the U.S. and the West. Others are just straight out anti-Muslim bigots. And it really saddens me to say that.

[polly7]

163. +1000 nt.

[laundry_queen]

194. Yes. Exactly. nt

[oberliner]

197. But there have been riots in Australia and Europe

They have taken place across countries where those issues aren't really primary.

[Spider Jerusalem]

103. The arrogance is a generally Western and particularly American response

Americans tend to have the idea that American values are or should be universal. There's no recognition or understanding of the fact that those values and ideals are the product of a specific historical and cultural background, nor any recognition or understanding of the fact that the secularism of broader American and Western society is the product of affluence and relative peace.

"We don't react that way" fails to recognise that, upon a time, we did, and our European forebears did as well. There were executions for blasphemy in Colonial America; there were executions of Protestants by a Catholic monarch, and Catholics by a Protestant one, in England, less than half a century before the establishment of the colonies in Virginia and Massachusetts. The whole reason for the USA not having an established church in the first place was the number and variety of persons fleeing one sort of religious persecution or another who came to the Colonies and is directly related to the rather bloody history of 16th and 17th century England. If the West were still religiously monolithic...if the Protestant reformation hadn't happened...and if the West through luck and historical accident hadn't become the richest part of the world, with affluence affording both leisure and education to a majority of people...we'd probably be as "uncivilised" as the Egyptian and Libyan and Afghan Muslims some of us are demonising.

[randome]

109. It shouldn't matter what brought us to this point, though.

Whether the result of luck or anything else, we don't break into embassies and kill people because of a UTube video.

As many problems as America has, we still stand as a beacon -in general terms- of equal rights for all, regardless of how those rights are sometimes abrogated and abused.

The ideal is still there.

Every culture has its disreputable, violent past. We have no control over that now. But we should stand up for rights for all. That includes women, minority and sexual identity rights.

[Spider Jerusalem]

112. See, that's just the sort of arrogance I'm talking about though

it does matter specifically because America is not the world, and the Middle East and North Africa are not America. "We don't"...yes, but there are reasons for that, and those reasons DO matter, especially when asking why people who are not Americans and don't share that history DO react differently to things.

[randome]

121. I see your point.

But, in all too many cases, when you refer to people who 'don't share that history and DO react differently to things', you are referring to men.

It is men in other cultures who keep their women a downtrodden minority. Women in those cultures might have very different opinions on how to react to things but it's not easy for us to discover that because they are practically kept as captives.

That is something I am in favor of changing. I couldn't care less about America's past. This is something that needs to change asap.

It's not going to do any good to march in and dictate how people should behave but there are other ways to influence things like this.

[Spider Jerusalem]

126. It's poverty that does that

wealth and affluence are responsible more than anything for the advances in women's rights in the West.

[randome]

131. Agreed. We can 'afford' the concept of equal rights.

But too often when we say we understand a culture in the Mideast, we really mean we understand the men. And that's not a complete picture.

[lunasun]

168. Surreal !

[malokvale77]

164. Thank you

I've been trying to articulate a response to this behavior since I logged on. You laid out my thoughts quite eloquently. Now I can go rest my tired bones.

[lunasun]

167. a voice of reason...refreshing

[graham4anything]

104. I agree

the movie by a criminal POSING as a Jew POSING as a director was made to illicit the response they wanted, akin to the teaparty or libertarians or the republicans

when there is a intent to riot, the mob is whisked into a frenzy and more and more it is not their fault.

It is also driven on by the out of control big mouth of Mitt Romney who's rush to judgement without looking at facts added to the hatred

It was just the right atmosphere for more piling on to occur in Libya

and what's the world to think when you have a Mitt Romney spewing his hatred

Muslims are PEOPLE folks

and have Muslims become fairgame FOR LIBERAL DEMOCRATS to be racist against?

Which is why I advocate extreme judicial punishment for the faux film maker who could have come out of the diabolical minds of the people who are like Karl Rove and Rush and Sean who spew hatred to those different than them 24/7/365

Freedom of speech should not encompass that hatred

(but then Ron Paul'o'phyles for years have given him a pass on any and all racism his supporters in racist places (ala the John Birch Society mindset and the David Dukes and all.


And tolerance means this crap to incite them stops.

After all, we don't look fondly on it here (witness those 3 asswipes in Texas who chained a black guy to the back of their truck and wildly drove through town, dismembering him.
They I believe are on death row.

and we have to respect other cultures and that other cultures do not have the same laws and feelings we do.
Isn't that what our democracy is suppose to do? Respect any and all.
What is freedom of religion if we(and especially democrats) think it only applies to us and not to anyone different?

The inciters of the riots, and the individuals who might have killed the 4 are the only perps who justice should be done.

Or are we just bullies? That is so Rush-like.

[MNBrewer]

105. In what context is this "understandable" and not uncivilized, backward and violent

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4q4rh_peter-tatchell-in-iran-gay-men-are_news

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/iran-gay-men-executed-hanging_n_1515207.html

http://scrimac.com/2011/10/18/20-saudi-gay-men-could-face-execution/

[progressivebydesign]

106. A abhor all extremists, no matter the religion, also can't stand anarchists, libertarian extremists,

and liberal extremists. The key word is extremists. I've known many kind and peaceful Muslims, and have neighbors who call themselves Christian, that frighten me.

[tama]

156. Abhor yourself

extremist centrist!

[patrice]

111. Freedom? Slavery: when "it's the other guy", it's ALWAYS "the other guy" who caused me/us to

_____________________ (whatever).

That's the dynamic, "Muslims are so fucked-up, that we are justified in ____________, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , and . . . . . . . . . . ." first and foremost of which is to tell them how "fucked-up" they are.

People refuse to honestly put themselves in the other person's position; they just pretend to and don't take all of the possible factors into consideration.

[limpyhobbler]

113. You are correct on this.

I keep thinking it's like the LA riots. It wasn't all just about Rodney King being beat down. It took decades to create the conditions for it.

Several idiots got on TV trying to explain the whole thing by moral decay and welfare dependency, or some barely hidden racist language.

We better start asking "why" if we want this kind of stuff to stop.

It's not defending the rioters to ask what creates the conditions where this happens.

To be honest I think religion is a major problem there. But if people are that religious maybe we ought to try and respect their religion a little more by condemning the film instead of rushing to defend it. I'm NOT suggesting to ban it. But socially condemn it if it is hateful.

[B Stieg]

120. Islam is still a young religion

Recall any of the violent crap Christianity has inspired in just over 2,000 years?

An eye for an eye--ideologically, rhetorically or materially--leaves the whole world blind.

[MNBrewer]

122. 1400 years is young?

Sorry, but Mormonism is a young religion. Scientology is a young religion.

Christianity had its Reformation at about 1500, so maybe we'll have to suffer another century with the "new kid on the block", but seriously????

[just1voice]

123. Propaganda responders rule the American populace

They don't want to think or feel anything except what they're told. Some find out what dupes they are only when something terrible happens to them, like losing a child in a fake war or losing their house to a corrupt bank. Others somehow manage to block out the 24/7 onslaught of info-tainment that passes for news.

[liberallibral]

127. Sorry, but when hoards of people riot and cause violence because of a cartoon or a movie....

... then the fanatics deserve every ounce of harsh criticism they get!!!

[Igel]

132. CONTEXT.

It's not there, cali, for some people. And it's not there in the post when we read some responses.

DU has a rep for being anti-Xian. I'll start there.

Some people are apparently anti-Xian. They don't like Xians. "Look at the Xian idiot." Any religion, any faith just means "see the idiot." Put "Islam" in there, and you get "Look at the Muslim idiot." This isn't anti-Muslim. It's anti-religion. They form a little, loud group and when you put them in their box they're safe and inoffensive enough.

Some people are anti-fundie. If you're a good Episcopalian or Methodist you're fine. You're enlightened. "No merger of church and state" doesn't mean that we Xians don't have a duty to make the state clothe and feed the poor because "as you do to the least of these little ones, so you do to me." Yeah, there's a big internal conflict not that far from the surface, but that's okay. This carries over to other faiths. If you're a Buddhist killing Muslims because, well, you're in W. Burma then you're an idiot Buddhist and the Buddhists doing the killing and oppression are evil. Same for the Muslims who are doing the rioting. Etc.

These people go into a big box, and you have to read carefully. They so assume that it's clear that enlightened religionists of any stripe are perfectly fine--meaning "those that think essentially as they do"--that they use "Xian" or "Muslim" or "Buddhist" without qualifiers. When they say "idiot Muslim" they mean 'idiot" to restrict the set of Muslims to those they have in mind, not to be an attribute of all Muslims. This is especially true when you have a bare plural. "Muslims ...." That could mean "a prototypical Muslim," that could mean "some Muslims" or it could mean "all Muslims." "Cats like to kill mice" is true, but our cats don't kill anything. Perhaps the prototypical one does, perhaps most, but hardly "all." "Cats are mammals" is universally true--no animal cat fails to be a mammal.

But when it comes to other faiths, they really have a problem being judgmental--victims can't also be oppressors, and the US is the oppressor in chief. Some are old-school relativists and to condemn is to be racist. Others focus on the glass' being half full (nonsense--it's always full, just 1/2 full with water and 1/2 full of air!)--they only want to talk about the good X, whatever group X is, as long as it's not domestic politics or disputing. Others confuse "understanding" and "sympathizing" with "approving." If you condemn, you must not understand.

Then there are anti-extremists on DU, who have, for various reasons, overgeneralized. This can also be tricky. Every overgeneralization is different--sometimes the person knows it's an overgeneralization, sometimes he doesn't sometimes it's done in a fit of pique, sometimes it's looking at one group that's condemned in preference to another, possibly larger group that's just quiescent.

I'll use myself as an example. I'm often in what appears to be an anti-Muslim group. While I've had Muslim friends, most of the self-identified Muslims I've run into have been bigoted idiots. Take one group, in one several-month span of time. One was a friend (an Iranian Shi'ite), and we still get along just fine years later. One Sa'udi Sunni refused to shake my hand or sit near me because I was Jewish (I'm Scot-Irish Xian, thank you). Another Sunni, Pakistani, yelled at me that we didn't appoint him to some committee because he was Muslim and we're all racist Islamophobes (and slammed the phone down when I said we had appointed his fraternal twin, also a Muslim). I don't think all Muslims are paranoid and oversensitive. I think many are. I don't have a handle on the relative percentage, but believe it's not a truly small percentage. I tend to think that it's not old middle class Muslims that are like this, but from poor families who suddenly have more money and from rich or even middle-class families whose kids are seeking "authenticity." Thing is, there are a lot of poor Muslim families in the darul Islam.

I still think they were idiots because even after it was clear I wasn't Jewish and we had appointed a closely related Muslim, the Muslim students association still treated us like crap. Let's not even talk about the dozens of other intentional slights that we failed to notice--the request to speak that somebody failed to give us and we ignored, the funding request we denied for 90% of the money they needed for one event even though it's all the money we had for 200 student groups for the year. We're talking dozens of people. They were pretty much closed minded and couldn't bring themselves to admit that anybody in their group had been unreasonable. Everything was a plot against "the Muslims." Nobody wanted to insult a fellow Muslim at the expense of an outsider. Few openly defended those who were actively doltish. The defense of those who were wrong was passive, a mere refusal to discuss that they could have done anything wrong. However, when any of them were the victim of some slight, then there was a problem and most were actively involved in decrying the offense. These are traditionalists. They're not going to change. If anything, they're going to resist change. They're not a small percentage. They are loud.

However, this was one Muslim organization. A lot of Muslims I knew refused to belong to it. They couldn't get along with it. They were "moderate" in the sense of "not all that observant." To interact with it would be to face constant demands for conformity. In many cases I heard only in passing that so-and-so was Muslim, and that only because a major feast was happening. Rather like finding out "Steve" was Jewish, ham sandwiches notwithstanding, because he went to temple on Yom Kippur with his family ... after breakfast, of course. These were the Muslims that many unreasonably expect to denounce their fellow Muslims. They see no reason to do so, but ultimately it's from them that changes in Muslim society has to come. But when push comes to shove, mostly they still side with Muslims because there's this idea that there's only one Islam and the ummah is really important. Their quiet non-conformity with what the fundies want already creates more than enough tension in many societies.

This doesn't mean I'm anti-Muslim. I'm anti fundie in my own way.

But I also believe in treating people in appropriate ways. I found HCR's response on Wednesday to be horribly Eurocentric. It was said to others in Georgetown, other Western culturally enlightened observers. It's meaningless to most in Libya and Egypt. Unless you were educated in the West and know the West well it was drivel.

The Arabic translation should have read something like, "Today a US ambassador and three other Americans were killed for what is a right in this country--the right to say words without having the government come and throw you into prison, to harrass and torture your families for mere speech. The dead weren't responsible for offending Muhammed, and weren't Muslims. The film that's protested wasn't known to them, and they had nothing to do with it. Those who killed, those who burned and destroyed, insist on compulsion in religion, and in so doing deny that Muhammed spoke Allah's words and is his Prophet. They set themselves up as additional prophets and add to Allah's words, making Allah into a god of hate and Muhammed into a prophet of evil. They cannot be considered Muslims, for they shame Allah and his ummah far more than some obscure Christian in a far off country could. Muslims who support these miscreants should be embarrassed, bringing shame on the ummah and causing Allah to be defamed among the peoples of the world. The killing of the innocent, the trampling and destruction of others property, all based on a lie, cannot be held to be honorable. How can they be Muslims, if they kill and oppress those that are in your country by invitation, under the protection of the Muslims, and who have not taken up weapons in rebellion but only when attacked by those whose duty says they must be defenders? You are the best people but only if you preach what is right and condemn what is wrong. These preach what is right and condemn those who do no wrong."

If nothing else, it would make for an interesting news cycle.

[tama]

190. Excellent

"Today a US ambassador and three other Americans were killed for what is a right in this country--the right to say words without having the government come and throw you into prison, to harrass and torture your families for mere speech. The dead weren't responsible for offending Muhammed, and weren't Muslims. The film that's protested wasn't known to them, and they had nothing to do with it. Those who killed, those who burned and destroyed, insist on compulsion in religion, and in so doing deny that Muhammed spoke Allah's words and is his Prophet. They set themselves up as additional prophets and add to Allah's words, making Allah into a god of hate and Muhammed into a prophet of evil. They cannot be considered Muslims, for they shame Allah and his ummah far more than some obscure Christian in a far off country could. Muslims who support these miscreants should be embarrassed, bringing shame on the ummah and causing Allah to be defamed among the peoples of the world. The killing of the innocent, the trampling and destruction of others property, all based on a lie, cannot be held to be honorable. How can they be Muslims, if they kill and oppress those that are in your country by invitation, under the protection of the Muslims, and who have not taken up weapons in rebellion but only when attacked by those whose duty says they must be defenders? You are the best people but only if you preach what is right and condemn what is wrong. These preach what is right and condemn those who do no wrong."

I wish I was translator into Arabic, and skilled Internet propagandist to spread this to the appropriate audience.

[cr8tvlde]

135. Me, too. Perhaps some real data on the US in eternal wars, mostly of choice,

can help us to grasp, and not continue to repeat history. Sorry if this is not PC, but if not, it should be, IMHO.

These are not details of a friendly world police force. The US has always been at war. It requires dehumanizing the intended conquered. (currently ... Muslims) I believe the events of Pearl Harbor and 9-11 were known in advance, and allowed to happen, at best. It dehumanized their entire population so we could obliterate/slaughter millions of them with cheering public approval.

Here are detailed, written versions of foreign "interventions" ... many begun to "protect American interests" or promote "regime change" so we could have an "American interest".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._foreign_interventions_since_1945 (actually since the Colonial/Indian Wars)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States ... another

Here's an amazing 90-second visual version. http://teeth.com.pk/blog/2006/11/01/236-years-of-us-military-conquest-in-90-seconds

I am a proud American by birth. But I'm not always proud of what is done in my name.

I'll vote for Obama, not because his hands are clean...see above, but because I believe he is able to learn, to feel, to act in a more adult manner than his war-mongering opponent and neo-con advisers. Romney is just the clueless stand-in for more of the above insanity. But what I'm afraid of is that American war is a drug to which our colletive culture/economy/ethnocentrism/ego is addicted.

Can we ever stop, or just slow down our financial bleeding abroad and feed, provide health care, and a safety net to all Americans?
This is a clear line in the sand that should exist between R and D, Liberal and Conservative. Feed, clothe, care for Americans first, then go play global war if they must.

Dove? Guilty. Anti-war? Guilty. Pro American Safety net first? Absolutely. Those who do not understand history, will live to repeat it.

Peace to all.

[cr8tvlde]

137. This war is no more anti-Muslim than the wars of conquest for CA, TX, NM and AZ were

wars of Protestant against Catholicism. It's just whatever meme will charge up the conquering hordes and justify the invaders.

Way back when we justified it with the superior "Manifest Destiny" ... the higher good of the specially endowed trumped slaughtering the natives.

Now, we call it Freedom. Enduring Freedom. Freedom Eagle. Operation Power Pack. Operation Urgent Fury. Operation Blue Bat. Operation Prairie Fire. Operation El Dorado Canyon (Libya????? 1986). Operation Desert Storm. Operation Restore Hope. Operation Infinite Reach. Operation Deliberate Force. Operation Uphold Democracy. Operation Noble Anvil????WTF??? Clinton in Kosovo.

Then Bush just mushed them all together in War on Terror. Much easier than coming up with more enlightened war memes because there were just too many "ongoing conflicts" to keep them straight.

This is NOT about religion.[/

Peace.

[BOG PERSON]

138. SURVEY: KILLING OF BIN LADEN WORSENED AMERICANS’ VIEWS OF U.S. MUSLIMS

After bin Laden’s death, 34 percent of Americans surveyed agreed that Muslims living in the United States “increased the likelihood of a terrorist attack.” That was up from 27 percent prior to the killing. The percentage of respondents agreeing the Muslims in the United States are supportive of the country dropped from 62 percent to 52 percent.

Americans were less likely to oppose restrictions on Muslim American civil liberties after the killing, Nisbet said. For example, public opposition to profiling individuals as potential terrorists based solely on being Muslim dropped from 71 percent to 63 percent. Likewise, opposition to requiring Muslims living in the United to register their whereabouts with the government dropped from two-thirds of respondents to about one-half.

...

The negative feelings even carried over to personal relationships. The percentage of respondents who said they were unwilling to have a Muslim as a close friend doubled after the death, going from 9 percent to 20 percent.

...

Many of the changes in attitudes after Bin Laden’s death were almost entirely due to political liberals and moderates changing their opinions about the threat posed by Muslims in the United States, the survey found.

The percentage of liberal respondents who agreed that Muslims in the United States “make America a more dangerous place to live” tripled after bin Laden’s death, going from 8 to 24 percent. The percentage of moderates believing this increased from 10 percent to 29 percent.

In contrast, the percentage of conservatives who believed this were essentially unchanged – 30 percent before bin Laden’s death and 26 percent following.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/musamsurvey.htm

[Surya Gayatri]

140. I swear, you can't distinguish some posts from stuff over at FR...

[Douglas Carpenter]

141. "Blacks, gays and Jews never did anything wrong. Muslims deserve to be abused"

It is just as easy to build a case for bigotry against Jews, blacks or gays as it is to build a case against Muslims. All one has to do is myopically focus on certain actions of certain members of those communities and paint the entire group with the same brush while ignoring any nuances or explanations - and God forbid that anyone look in the mirror for equivalencies within one's own culture - that would be the sin of "moral relativism."


In the 1930's such hateful comments against Jews would have been acceptable even in many liberal circles

In the 1950's such hateful comments against blacks would have been acceptable even in many liberal circles

In the 1960's such hateful comments against gay people would have been acceptable even in many liberal circles

[PragmaticLiberal]

143. Cali, I don't think you're seeing much anti-Muslim sentiment on DU.

In fact, since I've been a member of DU I've seen more anti-Christian sentiment than Muslim.


And fwiw, I agree that the U.S. isn't pure when it comes to our dealings with other nations.

But with that being said, I don't believe that the U.S. is this evil "boogeyman" and the ME would be just great if we left the region.


The reality is more complex...imo.

[JVS]

144. Checklist

If you attack embassies and/or kill people, you are violent.

If you engage in such attacks because you were insulted, you are uncivilized.

If you believe that such insults justify such attacks or somehow bear the onus of responsibility for the attacks, you are backwards.

Check only those that apply for any individual.

[theinquisitivechad]

147. I thought the information coming to light shows evidence of planned attacks by an organization?

Not a flash-riot? In which case, don't think we can make any conclusions about the Muslim populations in those countries at large. Unless they're based on something other than these incidents.

[riderinthestorm]

148. Why don't the Central American countries react "that way"?

They have just as much history of disastrous American intervention, colonialism, exploitation, slaughter, regime change and more.

Or the Phillipines?

There are any number of countries where the US has done grievous, historic wrongs. But there's no parallel for how the populace reacts in the ME.

[tama]

154. Because

indigenous peoples there are less civilized than people living in birth place of civilization?

[riderinthestorm]

198. So because the indigenous people are less sophisticated, they will act with greater restraint?

I guess I'm not following you.

I see a great deal of parallels between how the US (and the West) have treated Central and South America, and other places, and how the Middle Eastern and African countries have been treated by those same entities yet we've never seen this kind of backlash.

Their education and poverty rates are also all third world.

[tama]

199. I know you are not following

but replacing the word 'civilized' with 'sophisticated'. "Civilizations" refers to history, certain cultural developments with common elements, the word originates to Latin 'civis', citizen of Rome. As you show, Civilizations and civilized consider their 'other' (e.g. indigenous peoples) less sophisticated.

The question was the other way around, perhaps the indigenous peoples are more sophisticated than civilized peoples? If you actually read the history of civilizations (and look around), they don't seem that sophisticated, but rather cruel and greedy.

Speaking about sophisticated rebel or revolution against US, Mexico and NAFTA, see Zapatista revolution.

[riderinthestorm]

207. Civilized or sophisticated is simply semantics. The Aztecs felt their culture was superior

to the Spaniards. So did many of the Native Americans, Mayans and many others. Its quite impossible to say that the ME is the "birthplace" of civilization - even the Mayans had the number zero. Americans think they are gawds gift to the earth (they're not, the Irish are - heh).

I still don't understand your point. Why would they riot in Libya over US imperialism, and why didn't they in Guatemala? Why didn't the Irish riot against the British embassy after the Brits pulled out?

The commonality of all of those places is colonialism, oppression, genocide even. In fact, I'd stipulate the Irish were more destroyed by the Brits than the Libyans have been by, well, anyone.

[riverbendviewgal]

151. I am in agreement

There are good people of different races and bad... Good people of different religions and bad.
Good people in the sexes and bad.

I think education and environment and society do effect how people react to things.

I read that it must be considered that people in other countries who have lived under a dictator or presently living under one, do not understand freedom of speech and freedom of religion. and their governments are unable or unwilling to explain this.

[MFM008]

153. I lived in Libya for 4 years

My dad was stationed there 1960-64. It was an awesome place,beautiful beaches, the people were very nice to me. I was worried about the women in the black sheets, I thought they were badly burned and had to hide. I was a kid of course. I went to bed to the call to prayers. I always had a favorable opinion of muslim people and my landlord Buzrebah
I remember still. I guess its in the exposure. It can be distant and scary or just the people next door.

[eppur_se_muova]

170. Let's drop their fundamentalists in the desert with our fundamentalists ...

and let them fight it out while the rest of us go about our lives peacefully.

Megidoo seems like a promising location.

[billyball]

171. Hopeless Barbarians

There seems to be a consensus among some that Muslims are just hopeless barbarians and democracy is impossiblie with them.

I don't buy it, while it's true that most cultures don't throw stones and treat women like second class citizens, they're still preferable to christians.

[cali]

172. my, my. that's stupid.

unwelcome to DU.

[billyball]

173. How am I being welcomed ?

Sarcastically or sincerely ?

[renie408]

200. You didn't read what they wrote.

They said 'unwelcome'.

I think it was probably sincere.

[randome]

204. Your remark was none too intelligent, either.

[Doctor_J]

174. OTOH,

airing this "movie" where and when they did was sort of like showing a KKK recruiting movie at the Apollo during the late 60's. They were obviously trying to provoke.

[renie408]

178. On this I agree with you 100%.

I find it so naive (?) or perhaps willfully obtuse to say things like, "We don't riot when someone insults our religion." or "THEY should respect OUR free speech because WE hold that to be one of OUR most important rights."

Those comments just feel incredibly stupid to me.

[randome]

182. And they should stop beheading women for daring to want equal rights.

And they should stop killing anyone with a different sexual orientation.

Is this the kind of behavior you think we should respect?

[renie408]

184. Of course I do! Naturally I support the beheading of women!

I mean, what woman doesn't?

No, I really just support people at least PRETENDING to be grown ups whose ability to differentiate between events has matured past that of the average five year old.

[randome]

186. My point is that there are obvious differences between the two cultures.

Not recognizing that is not recognizing reality.

[renie408]

187. No, that is the spin on your point that you are making now.

Your original point was that Muslims do not deserve empathy because SOME fundamentalist Muslim states behead women for various reasons.

[randome]

188. Yes, well, it's hard to feel empathy for those Mideast states...

...when heads and limbs are removed for innocuous crimes.

When they riot and kill innocent people over a YouTube video, I don't see that as a simple case of 'religious differences'.

Those are things we SHOULD disparage and work to remove.

And I need to point out that most Muslim religions do not allow women to have much of a say in their lives. So when you think you know that the only thing separating us is religious in nature, you are only looking at what the men in the Mideast cultures want.

We have little idea of what the 'other' half in those cultures want.

[renie408]

191. "Those are things we SHOULD disparage and work to remove."

So you are saying that it is the responsibility of the United States of America to 'disparage and remove' anyone who protests against us?

Cause the killings are something else and unrelated to the riots. Last I heard, the killings were undertaken by a coordinated group of terrorists who targeted the consulate at Benghazi and Chris Stevens. Now, I was off the internet most of yesterday, so maybe that analysis has changed. The RIOTS, however, have been attended by relatively few people (2000 in the largest cities, several hundred in smaller towns), have resulted in NO deaths or injuries to anyone other than the rioters and are slowing down. Yeah, they vandalized some stuff. Those animals.

It isn't OUR job to shove OUR values on anybody else. No, I don't think the only thing that separates us is religion. I think that we are separated by culture, history, religion and experience. Which is why I think saying "They should respect our right to free speech as we do." is completely fucking ridiculous.

You keep trying to make my comments about something which they are not.

[randome]

192. "Protests against us"? No, I think it is everyone's job to press for equal rights.

That's all I meant.

That and it's disingenuous to say they are just like us. They aren't. Not so long as they treat half their population like servants.

[renie408]

196. It is a flat lie to say that I have implied that they are just like us.

As my entire point is that they are nothing like us, so insisting they respect freedom of speech in the same way we do is stupid.

[randome]

203. My apologies if I took your point further than I should have.

In that case, my own point goes to the OP.

[renie408]

209. Now, I will say...they are just like us.

Middle Easterners are people, too. WE are people, THEY are people. I am by no means worldly, but I have known several Muslims and if I didn't know, they were indistinguishable from any other American. Some are first generation.

What makes the people of the Middle East different from us that ARE different is how they are raised to look at the world. Listen, this might sound 'bad' and I have never said it here because I have the feeling I am going to be skewered for doing so, but the Middle East has been dragged forward very rapidly into the 21st century. A 100 years ago they had a primarily nomadic society. These are people who cling to their history, not who rush forward toward the future like Americans do. Americans cannot understand why these people are still upset about something that happened in 1991 when some Middle Easterners are still pissed off about the Crusades. Which way is better? to NEVER look back or to rarely look forward? And why are WE the ones that get to decide? We are ALL OF US...me, you, the guy rioting right now somewhere over there...ALL OF US viewing the world through the filters we have put in place throughout our lives. OUR filter includes a deep respect for freedom of speech and the idea that the only way to go is FORWARD. His filter is a little different. And might be more different still in five or ten years.

In some of this there is no right or wrong...it just is. It is unquestionably wrong to do violence over this movie. Unquestionably. I would NEVER argue that any of these people have the 'right' to hurt another person. But I am not sure that from their point of view damaging our embassies is any more awful than the Occupy folks that stormed that the public building in California, destroyed public property and burned a flag on the steps. And most of us here, even if we thought they had gone too far, understood what drove them to do it and weren't THAT freaked out about it.

But let somebody ELSE, somebody who is OTHER than us, storm our public buildings and burn our flags and we go apeshit. I am not including the deaths of Stevens and the other three Americans in this because I believe those were targeted and planned and had little to do with the protest.

[4th law of robotics]

179. I've seen Christians receive far worse for far less.

Muslims are not being unfairly targeted here.

If anything many people who otherwise don't care for religion are giving them a pass *because* they're Muslims.

I can find many threads where the OP is about a muslim doing something horrible that lead to "yeah well christian in the US are just as bad" responses.

I haven't seen any OPs do that in reverse.

[cali]

181. there's flat out bigotry here against Muslims

and yes, I've seen that against Christians as well. One doesn't make the other any more acceptable.

[4th law of robotics]

210. Where?

I've seen people condemn muslims for their actions and beliefs but not hate them for simply worshiping a different god.


I don't consider statements that Islam is anti-woman, or pro-violence to be bigotry if they're substantiated by facts.

I'll be honest: I don't like that religion. I don't have much use for any religion and all require some insanity to follow (IMO). However they aren't all equally bad. Hare kirshnas are annoying for instance, but I've never heard of one throwing acid in the face of a young girl who dared to become literate.

It's foolish to believe all religions are the same. Just like it would be foolish to say all political ideologies are the same.

[Nye Bevan]

214. I hope you are alerting on any "flat out bigoted" posts you see.

Bigotry has no place here on DU.

[riderinthestorm]

217. Oh FFS, where? I've been called a bigot because I object to women having to wear a burqa

and that I don't understand their "culture".

Do you think objecting to disappearing women in a society is being bigoted against Muslims? More than a few DUers do, and have vociferously called me on that. Why do you get to decide whose bigoted and under what rubric?

DUers who stand up for the 1st Amendment, despite qualifying their position that the film is disgusting, are being called Islamophobic bigots.

What gives you the right to determine whose a "flat out bigot" against Muslims, and who isn't? There's a Muslim DUer, JCMach1 who's just returned from almost 10 years in the UAE, he has a recent post where he stipulates Islam is being radicalized across the board in most Muslim countries - he agrees with (gasp) Netanyahu. Even stating such a thing by almost any other DUer would get one tossed as a troll on DU. Is HE a bigot too?

Sorry but this is bullshit.

[JCMach1]

183. Cali, it's complicated and people don't like complicated answers...

Salafists and fundamentalist Muslims are every bit as awful as they have been portrayed. They are guilty as charged and backed by the bottomless pockets of the Saudis. They are enemies of civilization and democracy.

On another side are the vast majority of Muslims who are civilized, love their children, and believe in a softer, more tolerant, and peaceful Islam.

Then, there are also many (I will just call them MINO's, Muslims in Name Only) who are largely secular and much more concerned about the trappings of Western and modern capitalist society.

And that is just a peak at the complicated picture.

There is NO SUCH THING as THE ARAB STREET. Media and politicians really, really need to get past that metaphor.

I have lived in the Muslim world the last 9 years (I have finally moved back to America) and what I learned is just how complex the Arab world is... Which is what many of the so-called 'experts' who live in 'think-tanks' have never really done. I have sat in Taxis and discussed politics in the Sudan. I have discussed socialism and policy with royalty from several countries. I have met conservative female college students wearing skimpy dress (think Madonna) and a corset. I have met extreme liberal feminist students who completely cover themselves.

I laugh when the American right-wing talk about the dangers of Sharia and the Caliphate. Show me two Muslims who agree on the finer points of Sharia and I will raise you an Imam. As for the Caliphate? ...Only if the Borg take over and convert Islam in the process.

So yeah, often the Right AND (sometimes) the Left piss me off with what they say about the region.

[renie408]

185. Thank you! Just like there are Christians who believe the planet is 6000 years old and others

who believe in evolution.

[closeupready]

189. 100% agree.

K&R

[Romulox]

193. People deserve respect. Ideas do not. They must stand on their own. nt

[99Forever]

213. I'm with Cali.

Those that act like "the movie that caused the killing" must have a severe case of Rectal/Cranium Inversion.

Nor did history begin on 9-11-2001.

NOTHING on this planet happens in a vacuum.