Trying to think of a post for today when I checked yesterdays comments, looks like there's a bit more mileage in this yet. So let's start at the start with some words inspired by my good friend CasaB:

CasaB [Member]
04/02/06 @ 07:55

Well thought out and presented post Stone. Self righteous is where it is all coming from...and with your permission I will create a link of this post to that of my own.
There is massive and I think implacable gap between the 'holier than thou' religious taboos in Islam that is wholly incompatible with the freedoms that we enjoy in the West. This, as you have correctly pointed out means the freedom to be an ass too.. like it or not. Islam would stifle that and impose uncritiical unquestioning repression on such freedoms. And Islamic inability to mature and bloody well grow up, reflects the success of the control exercised by their religious leaders. Old testament stuff and no mistake.
R

Firstly, please, everyone, link away to your heart's contents. Secondly, I think I'd agree with pretty much everything said here if we replaced the word 'Islam' with the word 'religion'. As I said in the post yesterday, when we talk about 'Islam' in this context what we really mean is a small batch of religious nutters who, in this case, happen to be Muslim flavour.

The most worrying thing about this story is it's place in the wider scheme of things. In of itself this is actually just another example of the age old clash between church and state, in context however, it's just the latest instalment in a bitter struggle that's been raging since at least the end of WWII.

manwithtwobrains [Member]
04/02/06 @ 09:56

Like your drawing, very good. It is time us non believers have a march and demand respect.

The drawing is clearly shit but thanks anyway :) Secularism is a very weird kind of movement as it’s ‘followers’ share a lack of something rather than any common ground. Now I actually see this as supporting my own view that it’s the way forward for us all, but an immediately obvious downside is that it’s so much harder to mobilise the ranks.

The whole ‘intelligent design’ argument in US schools is another example of religion starting to try and take back some of the ground it lost to secular science over the last few centuries and it’s a worrying trend. I suppose the problem we have is that, as secularists if you like, our only real representative vehicle at the moment is the state. Let’s not get into how fucked that is right now, needless to say it’s not meeting our needs is it?

Murray [Member]
04/02/06 @ 11:21

Sorry guys but I'm gonna have to come to the defense of Islam. There's been a very effective campaign in the media to demonise Islam as the backward religion of fanatics. The word terrorism is continually mentioned alongside Islam and as a result of this people begin to draw firm conclusions in their minds. If the teachings of Islam are corrupt because of a fringe of suicide death cults, does that mean that the teachings of Christ are corrupt because of US abortion clinic bombers? Why is it that links like this are never drawn? Who's agenda is being served with this continual black propaganda?
It is a well known (yet little publicised fact) that many known members of Al Quaida harbour no strong connections to Islam and consider their Jihad (true translation: struggle) as purely political. When Nick Griffin stands up in court and quotes the standard Islam is evil because the Koran say 'slay the pagans where you find them', he is falling back on an old lie continually wheeled out by supremacists looking to cite Islam as evil. For the record I'd like to point out that this Ayah was proclaimed at a time of war and great persecution during the battle of Badr and after the breaking of the treaty of Hudabiyah, during which many muslims were slain. Why is it that we never hear the Islamic rules of engagement which clearly state 'no killing of women and children and no destruction of vegetation' muslim or non-muslim. Shame the same can't be said for our rules of engagement regarding Iraq and Afghanistan (and soon Iran). Either way I can completely understand any islamic backlash against any perceived media slights as the media is an enemy to Islam at the moment. But, at the same time I fully agree with stoneleaf's views on organised religion.

Alright mate, first off I know we talked about you starting to write a blog and stuff but do it on your own page yeah? ;) Just kidding, these are the kind of comments I love, plenty of stuff I didn’t know to get my teeth into.

I have to agree with my man Murray here. The wider context I mentioned above is described very well here, with many Muslims feeling, quite rightly, pissed off at the rap they’re getting. I can understand how this whole ruck with the cartoons could be seen as just yet another attack on Islam and to be honest it probably is.

It’s been done exceedingly well, but then the people churning this vicious shit out are hard boiled vets in their field. The story is presented as the values of the free West being challenged by this great spectre of Islam. We are then bombarded with images of rabid anger as proof of the ‘disproportionate response’ from ’Muslims’.

The effective aftertaste is, quite obviously, the impression that Muslims, or, let’s be honest here, Asian people, are violently irrational people who simply cannot be reasoned with. Now there’s no proof that this is intentional but if it isn’t the only other possible explanation is abject incompetence.

I mentioned another example of the whole context trick in a post some time ago. It was when certain Muslim clerics were under investigation for possible ‘terror crimes’. The story splashed across the media ran that one of these clerics had said that, had one of the London bombers confided in him, he would not have told the police.

Now while the tabloids were screaming, ‘BLOKE IN FUNNY HAT IS EVIL SCUMBAG’, vital information was being overlooked. While the guy said he wouldn’t tell the police he also said he would counsel the would-be bomber not to go through with his plans. ‘Not good enough!’ shout all the Daily Mail readers, and to be fair maybe they’re right. The point here is not whether he was right or wrong but the way in which the media treated the story.

Imagine if, after one of the many horrific bombings of the Northern Ireland conflict, it came out that the bomber had confided in his priest as to what he was planning to do. If a Catholic priest had not told the police but advised the guy not to kill how would the very same papers and programs have presented that? Would the tabloids be demanding that Father O’Reilly be thrown into Belmarsh for the rest of his natural? I doubt it.

I guess what this comes down to is that while we might bang on about how free and equal our grand society is, and how it must be protected from evil polluting influences, this great achievement of ours is still riddled with inherent racism and bigotry. The job is not done, there’s much further to go.