Well Put.
Yes, this is old news, but I really like the way this article puts it. Here's what I want to know: Excluding some (allegedly small) subset of the Muslim world, is there anyone on earth who disagrees with the concept as framed here? It seems so simple to me; I'd love to hear a rational argument against it.
UPDATE (and intrusion by Major John): see also.
UPDATE (and intrusion by Major John): see also.
posted by tempus42 at 12:05 PM
2 Comments:
Are you just trying to push me into another screed?
MJ, who're gonna screed? I don't understand.
What I am facinated by is the use of violent protest of non-violence. Did anybody from Denmark or France hurt anybody physically with their cartoons? Why then is it acceptable to resort to violent protest?
I can see how violence COULD be justified in the case of physical repression (peoples who rise up against tyrants) or even overwhelming, systematic, generational oppression.
The closest analogy I could see would be either the US flag (which I salute, don't allow to touch the ground and burn with honor when it is exhausted) or the Holy Eucharist (which I also treat with reverance, do not allow to touch the ground and before which I, as a Roman Catholic, kneel). If someone mistreated either I would not, nor would I countanance anyone else, commit violent acts.
PS my word verification right now is drwsn which I saw out of the corner of my eye as Darwinism (making me think of social or cultural darwinism). Funny, huh?
Post a Comment
<< Home