I’m a Scot (1/2), too, and familiar with the history of the clearances …if I’d been alive then, I’m sure I’d have fought to the death against it.

No. No, you would not. As far as I can tell, you would have been a middle-class tacksman, helping the chief’s factor to push the tenants into the sea, burning their thatch roofs, and telling them it was for their own good. Apparently, your model for positive change really is ethnic cleansing. Duly noted.

Then I ran across this letter from a reader at Kos.

“Muslim Cartoon Controversy: What the Media Isn’t Telling You”

If it is legit then it goes along way to explaining the real motivation behind whats driving this fake issue.

You all know that this whole thing was just puppet theater. And even if it isn’t.

Leads me to another thought which isn’t as pretty.

That of watching many folks on this blog make excuses for these people which would in many cases condemn the very lives the poster are leading myself included. (Hell they would stone me to death in a minute.)

And that really is the point. Freedom. Period.

It is just to much. I really don’t care about their belief in a god and this applies to any of the worlds religions. Period.

Peoples beliefs are great if thats works for them in getting through and forming their lives.

But that is never repeat never ever above my rights to free speech. And I am so sorry if that offend you. Grow up and get over it.

To do otherwise is to take our civilization back to the days when religions ruled the lands and we all know how well that went.

So lets not muddy the waters with speeches about all the empathy we should have for those poor misunderstood souls. These folks want, no demand that we turn back the clock to the 14th century.

I save my empathy and sorrow for the poor souls that have to live under these repressive regimen’s.

That what real liberals stand up for. At least the were I was raised.

Emphasis to point out how it should read.

If arguing for religious sensitivity and respect for religious minorities is “Stalinist” or P.C., then there were an awful lot of Stalinist Catholics and Jews running around 19th and early 20th century America.

I’m not saying that. My definition of Stalinist is not arguing for respect towards religions (hey, I know my history a bit better than that). I suppose I was rambling about a personal peeve, the fact that many people who strongly supported Soviet Union in the 1960s and 1970s are now biggest proponents of sensitivity and appeasement towards radical Islam (such as the Finnish foreign minister Erkki Tuomioja and other former Stalinists and apologists for Soviet Union).

Lacking context, I am aware now that my dropping the term Stalinist, devoid of context, was unclear. To be clear, I don’t think PC=Stalinist.

But even then, why do you (zuzu) assume I (or other vocal members in this issue) am unfamiliar with the tenets of Islam? I know that the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten are deeply offensive from an Islamic viewpoint. Ditto for the Satanic Verses (nothing new for me in what you told on that issue). I am also aware of many other facts that will push Islam (=not muslims, not arabs. The idea: Islam) into conflict with Western liberal values (=not Christians/secularist, not whites. The idea: Liberalism*.) For example, I am aware that for my religious beliefs (I am [close to deist with an agnostic streak] a Christian), or those of Jews, I am considered to be one of the People of the Book. Thus, Islam does not command my death. But it does command the death of my fellow human beings who are atheists or polytheists (such as Hindus), or Muslims that turn from Islam.There are also numerous “offenses” (pointed out by the cartoon scandal), that do not hurt the basic human rights of other people, that warrant death according to Islam. This is unacceptable. What I am saying is that fundamentalist Islam is irrevocably opposed to secular values (the muslims who embrace secular values need to be supported by uncompromisingly denouncing this fundamentalism).

There is this argument that fundamentalist Christianity is equally opposed to secular values. Abortion is used as the prime example in this (despite the fact that Bible does not give a clear-cut answer to that, or many other things beyond “Love God” and “Love your Neighbor” [which means - as anyone with better patience toward reading beyond the word "Neighbor" than Nietsche apparently had - everyone]). Even then, not all opposition towards abortion is religious, nor are all religious people anti-abortion.

Point being: Islam actively commands all Muslims to wage war on those who disrespect Islam. Jesus commands His followers to tell everyone about his message. Islam actively provides blueprints for theocracy (, the dual, political-religious nature of Islam calling for Shari’a). With Christianity theocracy is a huge stretch, if not a misinterpretation.

Until Islam can coexist with secular, Liberal values, it must be opposed. Until Muslims stop the huge amount of death threats and terrorism, I will answer the claim “Islam is a religion of peace” with poignantly sceptical: “Prove it”.

Jill, I appreciate the fact that you condemn violence. I also appreciate your quest for understanding in this issue. We all want to understand this. The conclusion simply may differ.

I hope I made some sense in all that.

* Liberalism in the sense: My rights stop where your rights begin.

Here you have the NY nuclear bombing as the catalyst, but heretofore we’ve been discussing “option 1″ as a means to prevent such a bombing. Recall:

Outcomes 2-4 are unacceptable. That means its option 1, whatever it takes

If we switch gears and analyze your plan as an after the fact response, then I think the case is stronger, but as a preemptive measure I think it’ll never come about.

How much will is generated when New York goes up in a mushroom cloud?

Enough, I wager.

It’ll never happen and I’m not saying this from a squishy sympathetic perspective, but from looking through a lens of realpolitik. To enforce such strict cultural re-engineering policies would require either dictatorial power or a unified political resolve. No one has that dictatorial power, so we’re left with political resolve.

To get to that point of political resolve requires, at the minimum, that the citizenry at least understand why such measures are necessary. The case for draconian interventions in another culture are going to be opposed by the usual suspects, for no other reason than the guilt they are trying to shed about Western oppression. What you’re proposing will become “the definition” of Western oppression. Now add the contingent who may understand the case that is being made but have misgivings and hopes that they’ll change their ways and governments on their own, if only we give them enough time.

Lastly, people just won’t believe you about the cousin marriage connundrum. I went through a lengthy dialogue with a physicist who couldn’t believe that the consanguinity rates were so high in Arab countries. Finally, after I linked him to scores of genetic and sociological literature , he came around. We’re talking about the very fabric of society here and the whole Bush Cheerleading Squad was completely oblivious to this important fact and thought we’d be welcomed with parades. The anti-war brigades wouldn’t touch this with a ten-foot pole for fear of looking like racist imperialists if they implied that cousin marriage ain’t such a hot thing for a culture to engage in.

So, going in to forcibly change the culture requires a strong backbone, and a citizenry to get your back, and solid world opinion would help as well, especially in the face of the sob stories, heartbreak, dislocation, hurt feelings, families ripped asunder, penalties, criminal trials, imprisonment, and/or executions. There is not an iota of good news in this whole scenario – all everyone is going to see is out and out imperialism and authoritarianism, and seeing how that will reflect on the society(s) sponsoring this action, most people will buckle and want to disengage.

You can’t change cultures at the end of a gun. In the past, yes, but there is no will to do it today.

I’m a Scot (1/2), too, and familiar with the history of the clearances, though I suspect not as familiar as you are – nice summary. I wouldn’t call it genocide (here we are, after all) – I would call it the imposition by force of a superior social organization. Not pretty – and if I’d been alive then, I’m sure I’d have fought to the death against it. Just as I would expect some Arab villager married to three of his cousins to fight against us telling him “your sons can’t live like that anymore”.

Nonethless, his sons can’t live like that anymore.

TangoMan -

How are you going to pry apart the custom of marrying your cousin?

Shoot people who marry their cousins.

Or less dramatically, introduce cultural propaganda against kin marriage, establish punitive laws that make it impossible to get an education or hold a good job or own land if you’re in a cousin marriage, and so forth.

How will you induce, at the point of a gun, the cessation of cultural practices than undermine democratic governance?

Shoot people who engage in those practices. Suppress or buy off the resulting insurgencies. Continue shooting the people who engage in those practices. Repeat until the generation appears that says “banging my cousin is NOT worth this shit”.

The example I have in mind is, pretty much, India. India had marriage and social traditions which made a modern state impossible to achieve. The British hunted down and killed people that followed those traditions. It was really ugly and imperalistic and judgmental and all those other things that make us cringe back in PC terror.

But it worked, and India is a reasonably democratic state. They hate the British with a passion, but they don’t set their widows on fire anymore.

I’m confused. Are you guys (by which I mean Tuomas and Jon) saying that it’s bad to criticize, boycott, and otherwise peacefully protest images that are offensive to your religion?

Definite no from me too. This would fall under the umbrella of “Freedom of Expression”. If there would be nothing but peaceful protests, the situation would be completely different (=no problem)..