Salman Rushdie - Outrage.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,undertheradar
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 11:59 AM

Since Bin Laden has already called for the killing of all Christians and Jews, anything more, like the Rushdie business, is just piling on.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: 282RA
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 10:07 AM

How long before Muslim extremists demand Western women be required by law to cover their entire bodies in public, wear scarves over the hair and all married women must wear veils in public.

And what if they demand women stop working, driving or going to school? That if her husband beats her she must submit to it for it is his right as a man? That she cannot travel unless accompanied by her husband.

That if the West refuses to implement these changes then prepare for suicide bombings.

I wonder how Western women would take it if Western men said, "You'd better do it or they'll go crazy and we don't want upset them unnecessarily."

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 07:45 AM

"I DARE Rushdie to insult Gary Lewis & the Playboys! I just dare him!"

After all, everybody loves a clown.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 06:34 AM

I don't think anyone has been saying the British government hasn't got the right to give this heraldic Academy Award. Just that they would have been better not to do it, and should have recognised that, rightly or wrongly, it would be seen as a provocative insult by many people and could have some very bad consequences. Insofar as there is seen to be some principle involved, this could have been reflected in other, less coat-trailing, ways.

I think that this is all far more likely to have been a matter of arrogant stupidity rather than malice or planned affront or a matter of principle. Rather like the Satanic Verses themselves in that way.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 12:49 AM

I just realized something you said, Ron, that I do need to address.

You said:

So..."Rushdie is getting long-due recognition for his services to the UK government in the form of Muslim baiting." That's what that sentence says.


Are you trying to use that statement from me as proof that I am excusing the behavior of the extremist Muslims? Because if you are, you are entirely wrong about that, and I have been consistent in making that clear here in this thread. I repeat (I think for the fourth time in this thread)...

...one doesn't avoid engaging in Muslim baiting (or any kind of racial or ethnic baiting, for that matter) to protect the extremists, such as the ones who issued or who support the fatwas. One rejects the practice of Muslim baiting to protect the Muslims who do not agree with the fatwas, and those who support them, from the kind of generalized hatred of all Muslims and all forms of Islam that we see so amply demonstrated here in this thread.


I do not excuse the extremists who issued the death threats and fatwas, and I never have. That issue is entirely separate from the point I have been making consistently in this thread. My point is, and has been that in taking action that produces the result we now see, one doesn't hurt the Muslim extremists (in fact, when one does that, one actually helps the extremists' cause). When one takes action that produces the result we now see, one hurts the very people who disagree with and do not support the extremists, ie: the moderate Muslims. It is entirely possible for me to hold the UK government responsible for the harm that is done to the moderates by their actions while at the same time disagreeing with and disapproving of the behavior of the extremists. In fact, it's the most logical thing I could possibly do.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 12:01 AM

I DARE Rushdie to insult Gary Lewis & the Playboys! I just dare him!

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 11:18 PM

(But thank you for the kind words and the welcome back.)

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 11:18 PM

Ron, I stated an opinion. Can you dig that? It's an opinion.

And I think you do do it for sport (not just on this thread). You don't seem to be willing to let up when someone has indicated that they don't really want to argue with you. I don't have time to argue with you, because if I allow myself to do that, it will take over my life. Give it a rest, ok?

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 11:12 PM

That's just not true, Mr. O'Matic. There are branches of Islam that haven't gone through their enlightenment phase, and those that have. Sufism, being a good example of one that has. And of course Islam as practiced by most Muslims in the US is no less enlightened than Christianity. The more fundamentalist of the Islamic sects are arguably more strict and backward than the more fundamentalist of the Christian sects, but you can't really boil all of Islam down into such a broad, sweeping generalization. It's just not that monolithic.

The term "the Islamic community" isn't really a valid term. There are many, many different Islamic communities which all have different degrees of enlightenment/fundamentalism.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 11:05 PM

Carol--

All I have to do is quote your own words back to you, just as with Teribus. You said: "I suspect, in being given this honor, Rushdie is getting long-due recognition for his services to the UK government in the form of Muslim-baiting."

So..."Rushdie is getting long-due recognition for his services to the UK government in the form of Muslim baiting." That's what that sentence says.

Similarly, you said "You do it for sport" Then, when called on it: "I haven't imputed any particular motives to you on this particular topic". Sorry, I recognize the game--and, as you might be aware, I enjoy pointing out self-contradictions I see.

You're a master of back-pedalling---but, sorry, that's what the sentence says-- in each case.


Still waiting for any evidence that Muslim-baiting is either what Rushdie had in mind or what the UK government had in mind in knighting him.



But I'd also like to welcome you back. You're an excellent debater--and we're not always on opposite sides of the fence.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 10:59 PM

I tried reading "Satanic Verses" once and could NOT get into it, which is saying something, as I'm a voracious reader. I think the best thing that could happen to the book was the Fatwa (so long as it was not carried out). The artist formerly known as Cat Stevens got into a bit o' trouble in that era and the artist then and currently known as Richard Thompson had some pungent remarks as well, although I believe in the latter case he was simply commenting on Rushdie, not on the Fatwa.

Rushdie being interviewed on the wireless was pretty good.

I think there is a large disjunction in the concept of what is and is not heretical or blasphemous, and there is a literalism in the Islamic community which once was, but for the most part is no longer, in the Christian world. The reason is a combination of perceived status in the world, and the fact that Islam is a somewhat younger religion which has not entered its "Enlightenment" phase. 600 years ago people were treated as badly in Europe for perceived violations of the faith.

We're seeing not merely a clash of cultures but a disjunction in timelines.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 10:31 PM

You're entitled to your opinion, Bill (as I am mine). I don't believe that I was including you when I made my point about people generalizing anger and/or hatred towards whole groups in this thread. It is a valid point, however, and sometimes needs to be made.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 10:13 PM

There IS, sadly, the "... tendency of many people to generalize anger and/or hatred towards all members of some groups because of behavior they find objectionable on the part of some members of the group."

And also, unfortunately, there is the tendency of some people to label all criticism of certain groups AS 'generalized anger and/or hatred'. I see 'leaders' like Al Sharpton doing approximately that when Blacks are called to task for their behavior. It instantly gets labeled 'racism'.

I put myself on the line in the US civil rights movement, and would do it again, and yet I sometimes see African-American culture helping to fuel problems that certainly are not universal among African Americans, just as I see Muslim culture failing to deal internally with many of the problems that they are being condemned for.

It is WORK to sort out and maintain perspective in these issues when some want to paint every issues black or white.

'Most' of my critiques here are about careless reasoning and hasty generalization, rather than specific support for or against some ideological position....and I see little point in just engaging in some endless "no you didn't"/"yes, I did" harangue.

So.... it is STILL my feeling that the British govt. has every 'right' to give Rushdie a literary honor, but they need be aware that radicals are LOOKING for an excuse to foment more violence. This situation MEANS that some sort of conflict is likely....it does not mean that either Rushdie or Britain 'planned' it, or is intentionally baiting Muslims, anymore than my walking down the street past a yard where I know there is a bad-tempered dog is intentionally provoking the dog.
(and if anyone thinks they can claim I am somehow equating members of an ethnic group with dogs, I assure you, that was simply the first metaphor that came to mind!)

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 09:38 PM

Hey, GUEST,Wig Head, how do you manage to post under multiple user names without having your posts get deleted by Joe Offer?

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Wig Head
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 09:20 PM

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 07:19 PM

I think I've said all I need to say here in this thread, Mr. MacKenzie.

CarolC, since making that statement, you've posted an additional nineteen times.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 09:13 PM

Considering the fact that Conrad Black has exposed knighthood as a ridiculous tradition, why would anyone care about 'honoring' Rushdie or anyone else in this way? The only worth this hollow ceremony would have at this point is to provoke the Muslim world.

Unless, of course, Rushdie takes some kind of pride in joining the ranks of Conrad Black and his ilk. No wonder the Muslim world is concerned about the influence of Western culture.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: heric
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 09:02 PM

>Well said, Carol. Irrational Islamophobia [etc.]<

Well, that fine. I'll support Carol on that point as well. (Not all Muslims are bad.) However, I do not see much upside to a knighthood-as-Muslim-baiting (passive-aggressive) ploy. Doesn't quite add up as I look at it. But, then, who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of bureaucrats.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 08:44 PM

Need any art furniture to put in your painted bedroom, Steve?


;-)

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 08:43 PM

Correction: I was referring more to the rioting over the cartoons rather than the rioting over the beauty contest. I would suggest that the rioting over the beauty contest was not so much over the comment as it was over the pageant itself, which I would say is a good example of extremism among some Muslims.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 08:38 PM

And I'm supposed to be painting my bedroom so I haven't as much time to support Carol as I'd like. There are a few of us out here though, Carol! :-)

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 08:35 PM

Thanks Steve. Muslims (and Arabs) are the official scapegoats of the West in the 21st century.


Well, given much Islamic rioting in was it Nigeria over a relatively inoccuous comment on the Prophet's possible approval of a beauty contest, world wide rioting over political cartoons, and such things as Holocaust cartoon contests and regular weekly "mar el Amerika" salaams, I think my hyperbole (if any) is derivative of my subject, not vice versa.

Except that it wasn't the innocuous comment that was the real reason for most of the anger and rioting. This has been discussed quite a bit on threads that were current at the time, and I gave my arguments about this subject on those threads. The real reason for most of the anger and rioting (as explained by those who were angry and rioting) was perceived discrimination. But it is a part of the orchestrated efforts at inspiring and spreading hatred towards Muslims generally that the media in western countries did not cover this aspect of it, and instead promoted the falsehood that it was about the "innocuous comment".


Sincere!

No accounting for taste, eh?


(That was irony, but not so much barbed as self deprecating.)


Anyway, thanks!


(But I still don't have time to play with you much. I have furniture that I need to make into art.)

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 08:16 PM

You're not particularly given to hyperbole, are you, Mr. Matic?

Mr. O'Matic, if you please ;-)&

Well, given much Islamic rioting in was it Nigeria over a relatively inoccuous comment on the Prophet's possible approval of a beauty contest, world wide rioting over political cartoons, and such things as Holocaust cartoon contests and regular weekly "mar el Amerika" salaams, I think my hyperbole (if any) is derivative of my subject, not vice versa.


I saw on the Wikipedia page about Satanic Verses that Mr. Rushdie's mother spent her final years in Pakistan, where she received a lot of support from ordinary Pakistanis.

I had a Pakistani roomate once. Swell fella. If your point is that there are nice Pakistani people, I'm way ahead of ya.


"BTW, Carol, WELCOME BACK! Gawd how I missed you!"

I don't know whether to take this as sincere or as (barbed) irony.

Sincere!

But I'd love an example from you of how to barb some irony!

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 08:15 PM

Well said, Carol. Irrational Islamophobia seems to be becoming the 21st century equivalent to "send 'em all back to where they came from - they've no right to come over 'ere taking all our jobs" of the 60s and 70s. It's an attitude the government is keen to engender. While we have an "enemy," no matter how distant and tenuous, what goes on at home will be far easier to get away with. Shades of 1984, eh? If it wasn't for Muslims we'd have to find someone else!

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 07:48 PM

That's the issue that's important to you, Bill, and I can understand that. The issue that is more important to me, and the one that caused me to decide to post in this thread, is the one I have addressed already - the tendency of many people to generalize anger and/or hatred towards all members of some groups because of behavior they find objectionable on the part of some members of the group.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 06:52 PM

Well...the ISSUE is important- in that it causes people to examine more closely their own value systems and decide whether principle or pragmatism is more important.

*IF* the purpose of the knighthood was merely to honor one man's literary accomplishments..(and it is hard to 'prove' anything else)..then both Rushdie and Britain need to decide how to proceed in the face of more threats. It may be that there is no easy way to approach reasoning with people whose view is: 'ANYTHING said about our religion which we don't approve of merits violent response'....

Obviously, most religions don't have quite so extreme a view...and it is hard to tell exactly what % of Muslims accept this, but the % is getting larger, and the extremists seem willing to kill other Muslims, as well as blasphemers, in order to promote this attitude.
It makes protest from within a bit awkward and dangerous, at least in some countries....and I can well imagine a situation where moderate Muslims are caught in the crossfire all over the world.

I see no easy solutions, only sad scenarios........

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 06:07 PM

(And I'm not really back. I don't have time any more to devote to regular participation in these kinds of threads. But I will make an occasional exception if I think it's important enough.)

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 06:05 PM

The ultimate "Muslim baiting" may be drawing a non-Islamic breath, living outside of the call of the muezzin, and reading a good book that doesn't include verses (satanic or otherwise) by Mohammed (pbuh).

You're not particularly given to hyperbole, are you, Mr. Matic?


I saw on the Wikipedia page about Satanic Verses that Mr. Rushdie's mother spent her final years in Pakistan, where she received a lot of support from ordinary Pakistanis.


BTW, Carol, WELCOME BACK! Gawd how I missed you!

I don't know whether to take this as sincere or as (barbed) irony.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 05:50 PM

The ultimate "Muslim baiting" may be drawing a non-Islamic breath, living outside of the call of the muezzin, and reading a good book that doesn't include verses (satanic or otherwise) by Mohammed (pbuh).


As for Salman, the mere fact that he wrote a book found deeply offensive by certain aged relics who instead of residing in rest homes for the terminally insane were made rulers of a once great country is actually neither here nor there for those who believe in free expression, (and of course even more deeply offensive for those who believe in controlled thought).

BTW, Carol, WELCOME BACK! Gawd how I missed you!

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 04:39 PM

>>Just wondering- did the English press demand citizenship withdrawal when Salman Rushdie made this comment about the Beatles in the novel, "The Ground Beneath Her Feet"?
".... but the beatles, for goodness' sake, the beatles are white English trash trying to sing like American girls. Crystals Ronettes Shirelles Chantels Chiffons, Vandellas Marvelettes, why not wear some spangly dresses, boys, why not get some beehive hairdos instead of those lovable moptops, and have the sex change operations too, go the whole way, do it right."
Spoken like a true Cambridge graduate, but also echoing what some others of us thought. The Beatles, or at least one of them, went the knighthood route too.<<

Alright. Insulting Islam and questioning its practices is one thing but insulting the Beatles???????????

I hereby order Salman Rushdie's death by any true lover of rock/pop music. We cannot allow for this blasphemous behavior. It must not go unpunished. The one who does the killing gets a free set of CDs of every single Beatles' release including early recordings with Pete Best and Tony Sheridan, alternate releases, and never-before-heard discarded studio takes. Includes a 10-page booklet outlining the career of the Fab 4 from the holy city of Liverpool. Put out by joint effort of Apple Enterprises and Parlophone Records and including an in-depth interview with George Martin. Don't be the last on your block to own this wonderful collection!

Be the first to kill blasphemous scum-sucking infidel Salman Rushdie who has dared not to like the greatest pop group of all time and this amzing CD collection is yours! You don't need love--all you need is a warm gun and the infidel's head on a spit. Death to Salman Rushdie and all such Beatle-blasphemers! This fatass shall never be lifted until the deed is done. I have spoken.

282RA, Holy Imam of 60s pop/gum.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 04:32 PM

I see from here that The Ground Beneath Her Feet "has been turned into a major new performance work combining music and film that will premiere at the inaugural Manchester International Festival in England on 29 June 2007."

That might turn out to be rather a lively night.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 04:04 PM

This is another little thing we have to thank Pakistan for.
Some allies to have in the war against the Taliban huh?
Giok

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 03:44 PM

Pakistan demanded not only withdrawal of the award of knighthood, but also Rushdie's British citizenship.

Just wondering- did the English press demand citizenship withdrawal when Salman Rushdie made this comment about the Beatles in the novel, "The Ground Beneath Her Feet"?
".... but the beatles, for goodness' sake, the beatles are white English trash trying to sing like American girls. Crystals Ronettes Shirelles Chantels Chiffons, Vandellas Marvelettes, why not wear some spangly dresses, boys, why not get some beehive hairdos instead of those lovable moptops, and have the sex change operations too, go the whole way, do it right."
Spoken like a true Cambridge graduate, but also echoing what some others of us thought. The Beatles, or at least one of them, went the knighthood route too.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 03:23 PM

THE Book - the good one!

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 03:17 PM

What book?

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 02:47 PM

Literary taste? The Pope? I've heard that he reads the same book every day - and has done so for all his adult life!

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 02:40 PM

Deploring the actual orders, but admiring his literary taste.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 01:29 PM

Where would we be if the Pope had ordered assassins to kill Dan Brown for writing "The Da Vinci Code"?

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Kipp
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 12:21 PM

Here in the west say all kinds of things against christians it matters if they are true or not the same goes for Jesus but no one orders the death of anyone. We live in a some what civilized society and by the rule of law. So now we are supossed to change that we have to tip toe around the Muslim world well I think we should aply that both ways if any one ofends mohamad or Jesus or christianity or Islam off with their head.
Kipp
PS You can still offed anyone else yet it is not PC not to

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 12:10 PM

That wasn't the analogy I was drawing, heric.   I was just trying to get across the very simple point that predicting or explaining something isn't the same as excusing it.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 11:50 AM

So who's baiting who? And what kind of infidel baiting will there be when Iran has its atom bombs? Something to think about.

Oh, I think it's pretty obvious that there's plenty of 'infidel' baiting going on as well. But Iran won't nuke anyone because that would mean their certain destruction. Plus, the US and the West are the only ones who have been threatening anyone with nuclear attack (you seem to be advocating it yourself). Iran has made no such threats against anyone. The US does have a previous history of nuking another country. Iran does not. The US has a previous and recent history of unilaterally attacking other countries. Iran does not.

So how do you manage to post under multiple user names, GUEST,undertheradar, and not have your posts get deleted by Joe Offer?

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 11:40 AM

I believe I may just be able to survive regardless of what motive you impute to me for my statements on this topic

I haven't imputed any particular motives to you on this particular topic, Ron. I just know from long experience that allowing myself to get into long drawn out debates with you is extremely unproductive, and a big waste of my time. So I'm not going to do it.

But if you are trying to suggest that I have in any way attempted to excuse the behavior of the extremists who have made the death threats, please show me where I have done it.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: heric
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 11:20 AM

The largest problem with that analogy is that the British Government didn't forget not to give Rushdie his knighthood. Once deciding that he was a desrving recipient (has anyone offered up anything to suggest that he was undeserving relative to other recipients?), they continued on a deliberate course without appeasement of the assassinators. It was the noble and proper course of action to stand by him in the face of his (eventually lifelong) tribulations.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 10:07 AM

Predicting that something is going to happen and explaining why it is going to happen is not the same as excusing it.

The strange thing is that people who are generally pretty clear thinking so often seem to find that distinction very hard to understand.

I have every right to leave my car keys sticking in the lock. If you see me doing that, please point it out to me. I promise that I will not accuse you of implying that, if I leave the keys there, a passing thief would be entitled to steal my car.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,undertheradar
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 09:16 AM

From Wikipedia:

"On February 14, 1989, the Ayatollah broadcast the following message on Iranian radio: "I inform the proud Muslim people of the world that the author of the Satanic Verses book, which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Qur'an, and all those involved in its publication who are aware of its content are sentenced to death."[2]As a result, Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese language translator of the book was stabbed to death on July 11, 1991; Ettore Capriolo, the Italian language translator, was seriously injured in a stabbing the same month, and William Nygaard, the publisher in Norway, survived an attempted assassination in Oslo in October of 1993. On February 14, 2006, the Iranian state news agency reported that the fatwa will remain in place permanently."

So who's baiting who? And what kind of infidel baiting will there be when Iran has its atom bombs? Something to think about.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 07:35 AM

Carol--



Also, you have in fact raised the theory that knighting Rushdie was intentional "Moslem baiting". We are still eagerly awaiting any evidence that this is the case--or your admission that you have no such evidence.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 07:28 AM

Carol--

As you might imagine, I believe I may just be able to survive regardless of what motive you impute to me for my statements on this topic. It so happens that I actually believe what I say on this subject--and many others--and that it is not just "for sport". But if you don't believe that, as I said, I'll get by somehow.

Back to the topic:

Very few things are blazingly clear in life. But two aspects of this are:

1) Any country has a right to honor any person for whatever it may choose, without citizens of another country putting a price on the honoree's head.

2) Nobody deserves to be killed for what he or she has written--and nothing else.


Now, can we have a clear statement of agreement with both of these propositions from you, Kevin, Giok, et. al?

We can--and probably will--argue forever the wisdom of knighting Rushdie--but these two statements should be something we can all agree on.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 04:01 AM

I did read the thread, John. And I noticed (and appreciated) your defense of Muslims against blanket condemnation (and that of a few other people). But more people were expressing hatred towards all Muslims than those who were defending them against blanket condemnation, and that is what I have been addressing. I did not say "all" posts in this thread. I only said a "majority" of posts in this thread.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 03:45 AM

IF you had read the thread Carol, you would find that several people have defended the Muslims against blanket condemnation, and been upbraided for doing so!
G.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 12:56 AM

Ron, I'm not going to get drawn into a big back and forth with you about this. You do it for sport. I've made my point. It's a valid point. My point is directed to the people who allow themselves to get sucked into these kinds of hate-fests towards all Muslims every time some Muslims behave outrageously. I think the US and UK governments are helping this along. You don't agree. No problem.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 12:35 AM

Carol--

Don't tell us about what the UK and US governments are planning in the Mideast. That's more of your speculation--and, more than that, not the issue at hand.

You have been politely asked to provide any of your own personal evidence that the UK planned to "bait Moslems" by this honor.

We are still waiting patiently for any of your own personal evidence. So far, the silence on that point is deafening.