Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
"If an apology had been forthcoming from the then prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, that probably would have been the end to it – but none came, and the humiliation was compounded."
Why did the Prime Minister have to apologize for something he had no control over in the first place? Even if he had personally drawn the cartoons, why did he need to apologize?
"Danes fail to perceive the fact that they have developed a society deeply suspicious of religion."
We shouldn't be deeply suspicious of people claiming that their beliefs deserve prescience over all others? We shouldn't be suspicious of religious beliefs in general?
"This is the real issue between Denmark and Muslim extremists, not freedom of speech."
No, the issue was freedom of speech, I assure you. But let's say this cunt is right; she's essentially arguing that if we weren't so suspicious of those poor Muslim extremists, we...um...my brain is melting. I hope this article doesn't last much longer...
"it is a smokescreen for a deeply rooted prejudice, not against Muslims, but against religion per se. Muslims are in love with their faith. And many Danes are suspicious of anyone who loves religion."
...ah, fuck, it does. It is right to be suspicious of anyone who loves religion. There. I said it. Their blind devotion can lead to terrible, terrible things. How much longer do the rational have to keep repeating it, mantra like? Religious. Beliefs. Do. Not. Deserve. Respect. OMMM OMMM OMMM.
"Danes are no more racist than any other western nation but many of them, especially intellectuals, have serious issues with religious believers. Westergaard has been visiting America and giving talks about his role in the 2005 Muhammad cartoon crisis. In New York on 30 September he told the audience that Muslims need to develop a sense of humour and an appreciation of satire. They need to understand that they are not "free of being mocked or being offended"."
1) Religion is a set of beliefs, not a genetic trait. It is not a fucking ethnicity.
2) Oh, God, I'm going to cry. No one is free of being mocked or offended. If you're offended then so fucking what? This article offends me and am I waving placards bearing slogan like "BEHEAD BAD GUARDIAN COLUMNISTS"? No, I'm just snarkily dismantling it on an out-of-the-way corner of the web.
3) Intelligent people have concerns about religion because once you actually study their source texts, their Korans, their Bibles, you can't help but feel deeply worried.
4) Basically, this woman wants us to bow down to fanatics and let them be fanatical, perhaps gaining the occasional disapproving tut or disappointed glance from the rest of us. This whole thing feels like a piece written by a Fox News conception of what a liberal is. I'm staggered anyone could think like this.
You reckon The Guardian kind of agrees with her?
I think we should give Christopher Hitchens her number.
In the same way that it doesn't agree with any of the contrasting columns that they carry in the paper.
They do care about web hits though.
Sometimes you get the sense that a column they publish syncs up somewhat with their own worldview
were very much in favour of the cartoonist and against the fanatics.
It regularly publishes radically different viewpoints on the same topics
They're probably desperate to move on from the Motoons controversy and no doubt groaned when she sent in her copy.
But they do like to give a voice to various interest groups, and this woman was given a spot because she's religious. And a lot of religious people do feel sympathy for Muslims on issues around blasphemy (leaving aside the usual dippy faux-liberal apologetics for Islamic violence).
i.e. atheists = intelligent
religious = thick
I just said "intelligent people." Didn't say "when intelligent atheists read the source texts..."
I think most religious people do have very real concerns about their Bibles and their Korans, because they're rational and free thinking. I'd go so far as to say that quite a few of these same people we consider "religious" are deists as opposed to theists.
I mean, as an atheist, I have no gripe. I just know that when people say 'I've read through the bible/koran', that's usually the sweetest smelling bullshit on earth.
As for equating intelligence with belief (and I know you didn't actually do that, this is more debating the post below), I bizarrely known an Oxford-Astro-physics-first-er who is also a hardline christian. For me, you can normally measure moronic levels by how literally things are taken. Thus, creationists are FICK.
Have to stay productive somehow. Raised Catholic so I know the Bible front and back (give or take a few thee's and thou's). The Koran is really interesting though, but the Hadiths are even better (if you're after a flavour of Muhammed as opposed to Allah). It all seems fantastically insane but the faithful seem to dig. It's fun finding out why.
Agree entirely with your second paragraph. My mate's the same (only at Hull, not Oxford, so make of that what you will).
When you start getting into creationist theory, that's where it gets pretty sodding brilliant - there are some howlers.
Oh yes. YES. Enjoy.
fuck this victim-blaming arseclown
especially cinnamon Danish.
Taxi for one...
so they start with an advantage, to be fair.
Some of that shit you were posting in the Wootten Bassett thread looked a bit suspect.
if sean starting paying kik a salary for his board posts
"Have I got this right? Danish paper has cartoons implying Islam gives rise to terrorism. Muslims are so offended by this that they try to terrorise the Danish paper to prove they aren't terrorists."