How to stop Muslim rage

Shorter Christopher Dickey: "Hey, West, just lie back and enjoy it."

We should behave ourselves decently and not denigrate the faiths of others, as we do not want our own faith (or lack thereof!) to be denigrated.

And really, some women should dress more modestly. Not to say that sexual assault is EVER excusable, but it would be better for society in general.

But we should make these decisions ourselves, voluntarily, like grown adults. You can maintain your rights without exercising them all the time.

Time was, common courtesy and decency directed our behaviour. Debate was reasoned and good-natured if at all possible. Men and women were quick to give up their own comfort for others - to close the window in the railroad car if someone was cold, for instance. There was a certain respect granted to women, and to your elders, and even children were expected to abide by protocol. Greetings and formal introductions were exchanged, there were arguments that went, "After you!"

"Oh, no, I must insist, after you!"

Now it's all about having the last word, "asserting yourself," choices, and "self-esteem." You may call all those old rules obsolete, but they served a purpose: they made for a gracious and accomodating public space where debates were generally polite and the points of view of others were taken seriously. Now, we are behaving ourselves more and more like children with no sense of etiquette OR common decency. Radio and television commentators sound more and more like spoiled kids having a tantrum in the grocery store.

I'm not saying we should go back to the 1950s, but there is a lot of room for improvement nonetheless. Courtesy seems to exist in our country now only among hotel and waitstaff of better institutions, in the military, and in certain hold out sections of small Southern towns.

I took a detour, but I don't think I'm too far off topic here. Of course we shouldn't appease Islamic militants. And a CARTOON is no reason for a group to erupt in lethal violence. But nor should we denigrate the faith of others or treat any group with disrespect. We should be quick to listen and slow to speak.

This may be one reason why we Americans have trouble communicating in other cultures. In places as diverse as Japan, the Arab world, and Europe, courtesy and protocol "grease the wheels" of social exchange. Business is simply not conducted without all parties playing by these rules. They may vary greatly from culture to culture, much as alphabets vary from language to language, but a literate person understands the concept and can learn new rules. I think we may be becoming illiterate.

Skirmishes between Muslims and Christians are not new. It goes back to the time when Moors conquered Spain, and when Turkish Sultanate conqered part of Eastern Europe. But the wars were for political reason not for Jehadism. Muslims all over the world became very discontent with the West when the state of Israel was established. Soon the wars between Israel and the Palestinians flared Muslims' hate and anger more and more against the Christians and the Jews. The extremists were encouraged by the Middle Eastern states to fight the Jews. It diverted the extremist anger from the kings and dictators to the Jews- an easy target. The Muslim leaders joined the war efforts against Israel. Now the Muslim extremists are out of control. To resolve this problem, the West need to pressure these kings and dictators to control their religious leaders. Second the Westerns powers should find a resolution to the Palestinian problem. Because they are the one who created the problem in the first instance.

AnotherBeliever, I appreciate your wise and temperate words. But I agree with Hoekstra: one need not approve one bit of Geert Wilders and his project to defend his right to criticize religion, and to criticize it harshly. I loathe and despise the cultured blasphemy of Christianity we often endure in our own society, but I would condemn any Christian who raised his fist to threaten the blasphemer with violence. The same principle that protects the blasphemer's speech protects my own. When Muslims seek to silence critics of their own faith with violence, or threat of same, that absolutely has to be fought, without apology.

How to stop Muslim rage? Become a good little dhimmi.

"If anyone needs me, I'll be be back in my room, Fisking the Dickey..."

Are you allowed to say that here?

There's certain "art" such as the infamous "Piss Christ" that I regard as mainly created to p*ss people off. The fact that some people create "art" out of a juvenile need to shock does not give anyone justification to go insane and riot and shoot nuns in the back and threaten continents (Europe, for instance) with destruction. That's not juvenile, it's bat-sh*t crazy.

The thing that bothered me most about Dickey's article was his description of Egyptian journalist Magdi Allam as "a self-hating Muslim." Talk about judgmental -- so everyone who converts from one religion to another is now "self-hating?" That's ridiculous. I admit I know little about Allam, but it strikes me that every legitimate Muslim (or ex-Muslim) who criticizes Islam in any way is instantly subjected to "the politics of personal destruction." Who is Dickey to say who is "self-hating?" He's just engaging in an 'ad hominem' attack it seems to me...

"Are you allowed to say that here? Only if you're a priest." - V

As depicted in my forthcoming cartoon on Fox, The Gepetto Files: "Who nose what evil smirks in the wooden hearts of boys? The Truth lies out there, like a barrel over Niagara Falls, slowly turning on the lathe, step by step, inch by inch...

Why is there no mention in your piece, Rod, of the various elements in that article which point to Muslims trying to moderate their own position?

Why no acknowledgment of the fact that baptizing this man in such a public way seems odd, given Tony Blair's quiet, private baptism service. Can we really say there was no hint of triumphalism in that act?

Why do you only mention the bad, and not any of the more moderating elements.

Oh wait...page hits. Check.

People have the freedom to switch religions in the modern world and offense over benign images of Muhammad is ridiculous. Persians did several art works of Muhammad.

However after considering it I do think Geert Wilders is just trying to tick people off. Yes I respect he has a right to do so and I think violence directed toward him is wrong. However let's say someone did a film that dramatized the fate of untouchables, showed widow's burning, read from encouragements to violence in the Bhagavad Gita, and ended with a call to stop the growth of Hinduism in the US. (It is one of our fastest growing religions and highly educated too) Would Christians or the West be as enthused to defend such a film? Or to go further let's say someone did a film that dramatized the punishments in Leviticus, then moved on the stoning of St. Stephen, and ended with quotes by Maimonides about Jesus being a madman. All those things are factual as well. Do you think Jewish people would be okay with such a film? Do you think Christians would be defending the film's right to denigrate Judaism with such vigor as they defend Mr. Wilders?

Why no acknowledgment of the fact that baptizing this man in such a public way seems odd, given Tony Blair's quiet, private baptism service. Can we really say there was no hint of triumphalism in that act?

First of all, the most likely reason Mr. Blair's baptism was quiet and private is that he preferred it that way.

Second, there is nothing "triumphalist" about the Pope including a prominent Muslim among the dozen or so non-Christians he baptized at Easter. Neither the Pope nor the Church are motivated by anti-Muslim animus. But by the same token, there's nothing specially-privileged about Islam.

Downplaying, hiding or discouraging converts from Islam implies that Christianity doesn't really consider itself a universal faith -- that we implicitly accept the Muslim view that Islam is God's final revelation, so that, while it's okay for anyone else to accept Christianity, Muslims should not. It's bad enough that that attitude is imposed by law on pain of death virtually everywhere in the Muslim world. It cannot be tolerated elsewhere.

Is everyone here reading the same article as me?

Suggesting 'It might be a good idea if you don't say that right now.' is not saying 'you should not exercise your right to free speech'.

Saying 'Please stop taunting the Muslims so they have time to modernize' is good advice. If someone attacks someone else, and you stop the fight, it is entirely sane to tell the second person not to taunt to their attacker until they cool down. It's not because you think their attacker was in the moral right, it's because you're trying to stop either party from taking another swing.

Moreover if you attack a group from the outside, it will regroup and close ranks, which is exactly the opposite of what Islam needs to do.

Neither he, nor anyone else, are suggesting that we are or should be 'restricted' from speaking in certain ways. He's suggesting that we choose to stop doing certain things deliberately designed to inflame Muslims, as that will make us out to be their enemy instead of their actual enemy, the few fanatics whispering in their ear.

In other words, we should behave politely towards Muslims, because there is something we want from 95% of them: For them to rebuke and disown their fanatics.

They are unlikely to do that if we run around mocking and insulting them. That's not to say they'll all become fanatics, or even supporters of fanatics, but they wouldn't become anti-supporters either.

Now, there are a lot of Christian conservatives who think this is massively hypocritical, because they like to imagine that they've been repeatedly attacked by the same people who are saying 'back off, please' right now.

Well, no, they really haven't, or, rather, there's much much more stuff defending and praising Christianity than attacking it. Go look at the few books talking about how 'God Isn't Great' and stuff like that in your bookstore, but then wander over and look at the 'Spirituality' section. Go find a single op-ed written about how organized religion isn't that great in your newspaper, and then flip to the 'Faith and Values' section that my newspaper runs every week.

And the really offensive stuff has no exposure at all. 'Piss Christ'? I mean, come on. A single work of art on display? Riiight. Meanwhile, this film also had no exposure...but only after protests. (Which, of course, somewhat backfired, but that's not really relevant here.)