Islam critic in hiding after death-threats; went too far?

[Jayems]

Time to bust out the old debate again, or just continue to shake our heads?

he French are always quick to quote Voltaire, but for the last week one of his bons mots has been particularly pertinent: "Even if I don't agree with what you say, I'm ready to fight to my death so you can say it." What calls the phrase to mind is the plight of Robert Redeker, 52, a writer and high school philosophy teacher who has been under police protection and in hiding with his family since the newspaper Le Figaro published his op-ed piece about Islam on Sept.19. Entitled "Faced with Islamist intimidations, what should the free world do?,"

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...0.html?cnn=yes

[JohnnyFlame]

Made me think of the fat ugly pig Rosey rambling about Catholics on whatever that lame show is. Like to see call Muslims out -- not likely as I'm sure she feels safe that the Pope and boys won't blow her up but wouldn't dare make a crack against Muslims or for that matter blacks.

Such bulldung about who gets hammered and who dosen't. Maybe Catholics should start blowing a few things up as well(IRA are catholics and that could give jobs to those guys who are currently unemployed)

[transplant99]

Two words...Salman Rushdie.

He is best known for the violent criticism his book The Satanic Verses (1988) provoked in the Muslim community. After death threats and a fatwa by Ruhollah Khomeini, calling for his assassination, he spent years underground, appearing in public only sporadically.

Now I know in the way past, many other religions had their nutbars that would actually want/call for people to die because of their thoughts on said religion.

honestly though....has there been such a call by any "Western" religions against those that oppose them so vehemently?

Truly asking....dont recall any myself.

[Kool Keef]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Made me think of the fat ugly pig Rosey rambling about Catholics on whatever that lame show is. Like to see call Muslims out -- not likely as I'm sure she feels safe that the Pope and boys won't blow her up but wouldn't dare make a crack against Muslims or for that matter blacks.

Whoa... that one seems a bit out of left field.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by transplant99

honestly though....has there been such a call by any "Western" religions against those that oppose them so vehemently?

Israel comes to mind, although "Israel" isn't exactly a religion per se.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by transplant99

honestly though....has there been such a call by any "Western" religions against those that oppose them so vehemently?

Truly asking....dont recall any myself.

Pat Robertson calling for the death of Hugo Chavez, not really sure if he counts.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by transplant99

honestly though....has there been such a call by any "Western" religions against those that oppose them so vehemently?

Truly asking....dont recall any myself.

It depends upon the timeframe you are asking. The Inquisition comes to mind.
Other than that, the only one that come to mind recently is Pat Robertson talking about Chavez (""I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.") but that is more political than religious.

[Ayrahb]

From the Time article:

Redeker's article called the Koran "a book of extraordinary violence"

Looks like Monsieur Redeker conveniently forgot the Old Testament. For some reason, I remembered reasoning for the genocide of Caananites and Amalekites (children specifically) as explained on www.rationalchristianity.net :

Why didn't God translate the children into heaven instead of having them die by the sword? Since the children lived in a world affected by sin, they faced its earthly consequences (Rom 5:12-14). Only a few righteous people were translated into heaven, namely Enoch (Gen 5:24, Heb 11:5) and Elijah (2 Ki 2:11). As noted above, since the children had not shown themselves to be righteous, they were not spared the common fate of death. It's worth noting that being killed with a sword (perhaps beheaded) was at the time one of the quickest ways for the children to die (as opposed to suffocation/strangulation, starvation, disease or being torn apart by wild animals - see Ex 23:28-29).

But I digress... I guess we (Muslims) just can't help ourselves. WE just have to collectively issue death threats, WE are a viloent people who are incompatible with "democracy", WE ... <insert something from MEMRI, Rutherford, Levant, the Byfields here) - the whole billion of us just friggin act like we want to bring about the end of the world. Well, serves US right when some of us react violently to the pathetic expressions of free insults-un speech. I am sure the Jews in Nazi Germany did the right thing while "free speech" against them as a group transformed into... you know the story.

Well, that feels better. Thank you CP for this marvelous opportunity to exercise the right to free speech, of which I've been congenitally unaware.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Ayrahb

From the Time article:


Looks like Monsieur Redeker conveniently forgot the Old Testament. For some reason, I remembered reasoning for the genocide of Caananites and Amalekites (children specifically) as explained on www.rationalchristianity.net :



But I digress... I guess we (Muslims) just can't help ourselves. WE just have to collectively issue death threats, WE are a viloent people who are incompatible with "democracy", WE ... <insert something from MEMRI, Rutherford, Levant, the Byfields here) - the whole billion of us just friggin act like we want to bring about the end of the world. Well, serves US right when some of us react violently to the pathetic expressions of free insults-un speech. I am sure the Jews in Nazi Germany did the right thing while "free speech" against them as a group transformed into... you know the story.

Well, that feels better. Thank you CP for this marvelous opportunity to exercise the right to free speech, of which I've been congenitally unaware.

This is exactly the problem. Instead of denouncing these kind of people...you bring up the bible and try and turn it around on other people. All you had to say was...these people who are calling for the death of this man do not represent Islam. But do you do that?

NOPE.

[killer_carlson]

While I am all for free speech and even more in favour of using reasonable restraint in exercising the right for free speech, I sure wish we heard more these days from moderate Canadian muslims publically distancing themselves from the radicals, the same way Christians do when groups like the KKK try to justify their actions from narrow interpretations of the bible. These stupid debates would end a lot quicker if people could point to local groups and citizens as a model for what the overwhelming (but silent) majority of muslims really are like.

Just my 2 cents.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Ayrahb

From the Time article:


Looks like Monsieur Redeker conveniently forgot the Old Testament. For some reason, I remembered reasoning for the genocide of Caananites and Amalekites (children specifically) as explained on www.rationalchristianity.net :



But I digress... I guess we (Muslims) just can't help ourselves. WE just have to collectively issue death threats, WE are a viloent people who are incompatible with "democracy", WE ... <insert something from MEMRI, Rutherford, Levant, the Byfields here) - the whole billion of us just friggin act like we want to bring about the end of the world. Well, serves US right when some of us react violently to the pathetic expressions of free insults-un speech. I am sure the Jews in Nazi Germany did the right thing while "free speech" against them as a group transformed into... you know the story.

Well, that feels better. Thank you CP for this marvelous opportunity to exercise the right to free speech, of which I've been congenitally unaware.

Although I sympathize with the sentiment you are trying to relay here, I don't respect how you've turned to the "Old Testament" (latently Christians and Jews) to try and validate your viewpoint. In my opinion, this does not make you any different than Redeker. I also think it is important to add that drawing a parallel between Nazi Germany, Free Speech and this situation is not the opinion of all Muslims as you are suggesting.

I believe a lot of the problem has to do with interpretation; Redeker interpreted the Koran as a book of violence, Islamic extremists interpret it differently and the majority of Muslims interpret it an even different way. Just like your example from the bible, does this mean all Christians are this way? Certainly not.

The reality is that the way Islamic extremists react to negative comments, gives a bad rap to the rest of Muslims - kind of like what Dubya Bush does for Americans.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

While I am all for free speech and even more in favour of using reasonable restraint in exercising the right for free speech, I sure wish we heard more these days from moderate Canadian muslims publically distancing themselves from the radicals, the same way Christians do when groups like the KKK try to justify their actions from narrow interpretations of the bible. These stupid debates would end a lot quicker if people could point to local groups and citizens as a model for what the overwhelming (but silent) majority of muslims really are like.

Just my 2 cents.

Do Canadian christians come out to distance themselves from Fred Phelps after he starts protesting at the funerals of soldiers? No, because everyone realizes that he's crazy. Same thing applies here.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Ayrahb

From the Time article:


Looks like Monsieur Redeker conveniently forgot the Old Testament. For some reason, I remembered reasoning for the genocide of Caananites and Amalekites (children specifically) as explained on www.rationalchristianity.net :



But I digress... I guess we (Muslims) just can't help ourselves. WE just have to collectively issue death threats, WE are a viloent people who are incompatible with "democracy", WE ... <insert something from MEMRI, Rutherford, Levant, the Byfields here) - the whole billion of us just friggin act like we want to bring about the end of the world. Well, serves US right when some of us react violently to the pathetic expressions of free insults-un speech. I am sure the Jews in Nazi Germany did the right thing while "free speech" against them as a group transformed into... you know the story.

Well, that feels better. Thank you CP for this marvelous opportunity to exercise the right to free speech, of which I've been congenitally unaware.

Are you suggesting that this is the same thing as Hitler vs the Jews?
Given the fierce monotheism professed by Muslims and your sometimes violent rejection of all religions other than Islam, one would guess that intolerance would be the first and most fundamental 'pillar' upon which your religious practice rests.
At present Mohammedists or Islamics get what they deserve, just as Christians get their comeuppance because of nutbars like Farwell or Kent Hovind. Until the "silent majority"?<sic> get control of the supposed vocal and controlling minority, you will find more and more people voicing their displeasure in ways you wont find amusing. Most of it is the TRUTH.

[JohnnyFlame]

"Do Canadian christians come out to distance themselves from Fred Phelps after he starts protesting at the funerals of soldiers? No, because everyone realizes that he's crazy. Same thing applies here."

No Christians/Buddhists/Bahai etc. etc. don't protest or if they do they send a letter to the editor or perhaps try and get a certain politician in. Meanwhile Muslims worldwide riot over rubbish that has been spouted at other religious groups to the extreme.

The difference it seems is purely this. Christians etc. aren't anywhere as near militant as Muslims. Therefore those "supposed" champions of tolerance and "TRUTH" feel free to take cracks at them.

And guaranteed the negative portrayal of religious groups would plummet the moment those groups started blowing things up. The only reason the POPE apologized is the threat of death.

Quite simply it SHOULD be that everybody respects everyone else whether they are religious or NOT. Those who don't should be faced in a peaceable manner in debate not in a derisive blathering on about their ideology or by riots or death threats.

The constant anti-religious blather by many in society including our leaders is pathetic. They should simply SHUT UP and just do their jobs and getting those jobs should be based on competency not religion. If somebody is out of line then confront them. What should have happened when the POPE came out with that statement is that some Muslim cleric should have refuted it.

Then the POPE should have either responded with his arguments or withdrawn his statements.

Same with any others who step out of line no matter whether it's a relgious or secular figure.

When society reaches that point I will believe we are more "tolerant" but until then it's pretty obvious throughout the world that there has been precious little progress -- very sad when you think about it.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Two words...Salman Rushdie.




Now I know in the way past, many other religions had their nutbars that would actually want/call for people to die because of their thoughts on said religion.

honestly though....has there been such a call by any "Western" religions against those that oppose them so vehemently?

Truly asking....dont recall any myself.

What do you mean by "way in the past"? We sensible western Christians had a nifty little fight that ended up with 62 million dead folks and my own grandpappy was too old to fight in that one. Is that way in the past?

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. "

From the one and only Ann Coulter, a self-professed Christian, best-selling author, widely-read columnist and television personality.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What do you mean by "way in the past"? We sensible western Christians had a nifty little fight that ended up with 62 million dead folks and my own grandpappy was too old to fight in that one. Is that way in the past?

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. "

From the one and only Ann Coulter, a self-professed Christian, best-selling author, widely-read columnist and television personality.

I'm wondering what your point is Rouge? The 2nd World War was hardly fought on religious grounds. Nor was even much based on ideology. The guy came after us and what choice did we have but to defend ourselves.

So what point are you trying to make?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

I'm wondering what your point is Rouge? The 2nd World War was hardly fought on religious grounds. Nor was even much based on ideology. The guy came after us and what choice did we have but to defend ourselves.

So what point are you trying to make?

I wasn't trying to make a point, I was answering the question.

Transplant asked:

Now I know in the way past, many other religions had their nutbars that would actually want/call for people to die because of their thoughts on said religion.

honestly though....has there been such a call by any "Western" religions against those that oppose them so vehemently?

The answer is yes. There are lots of examples, WWII being one of them, of practitioners of western religions actually wanting/calling for people to die for lots of reasons, and religion is one of them.

[JohnnyFlame]

OK I still don't get you. Western religions called for people to die in WWII based on religion? Really don't know how that answers that question. WWII was certainly not fought over religion nor did countries decide to enter the war based on religion nor was there any kind of western jihad involved. So what is your answer because I certainly don't see one.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

OK I still don't get you. Western religions called for people to die in WWII based on religion? Really don't know how that answers that question. WWII was certainly not fought over religion nor did countries decide to enter the war based on religion nor was there any kind of western jihad involved. So what is your answer because I certainly don't see one.

Johnny,
I think you can draw a pretty strong basis for religious issues in WW2 by simply looking at the extermination of millions of "Jewish" people by a "Catholic" Hitler. Was it the reason the War was fought...or was it one of the main issues of WW2? Maybe. Maybe not....but MILLIONS were killed based on their faith and race.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

OK I still don't get you. Western religions called for people to die in WWII based on religion? Really don't know how that answers that question. WWII was certainly not fought over religion nor did countries decide to enter the war based on religion nor was there any kind of western jihad involved. So what is your answer because I certainly don't see one.

Religion obviously had a role to play in WWII. I mean really, they were killing millions of people based on their religion, so to say it was not fought over religion isn't entirely true.

What question am I not answering?