[bloch]

Let me show you a recent example of what this is about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfW95sSaVVo

This took place in a swedish university during a lecture about religion and freedom of speech. The video that Lars Vilks showed during this clip was made by an iranian artist. Before this he had showed examples of offensive material directed at christianity etc.

And there is a funny kind of double standard involved, because practically nobody objects when artists offend religions where the response to the alleged offence isn't violent.

EDIT: A few days after this attack, "somebody" tried to firebomb Vilk's house. All because of a series of rather tame drawings like this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muh-hund-original-rondelll...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Vilks

[ErrantX]

There's no excuse for such idiocy.

But comparing it to reactions to offensive material about Christianity is impossible; they just react differently is all.

The history and teachings of Islam differ drastically from the way modern Christianity has gone.

Defending the faith is still a core part of the Muslim religion - whereas Christian churches have been steadily pushing people away from those ideas. It explains why there is a difference.

As to why the individuals do what they do; well that is a personal liability. I suggest that there are those who would do the same if Christianity preached similar teachings in the modern day (indeed, plenty of them did in the past. And look at the Christian extremists - who foster much the same ideas)

[bloch]

Why is a comparison impossible?

The attackers were swedish citizens.

This sounds exactly like the excuses and double standards I was refering to: "There is no excuse, but [insert excuse]."

[ErrantX]

Double standard? I don't understand what you mean.

What I am talking about is that the way Christianity and Islam preach you should react to attacks like this are entirely different. Hence the different reactions. So you can't say "why do attacks on Christianity not get the same reaction" - because the answer is obvious.

There is no excuse; but there is a reason. :)

Here's an example which might help show my point: there is a difference between the way a "religious" Glasgow Rangers football supporter and a Bath Town supporter will react if you call their teams sissies (i.e. the stereotype Glasgow guy would punch you in the face while the Bath guy would ignore you).

(EDIT: I realised that is a very UK centric example. Insert any sports team with religious and fervent followers for Glasgow and one with passionate but reserved followers for Bath)

EDIT2: if you wish to downvote feel free; but it would be interesting to hear why you disagree (this is based on observation of the two religions so I could be wrong)

[semanticist]

The violence associated with football in Glasgow is literally religious - it's an example of Christian sectarian violence.

Attacks on Christianity don't get the same reaction because in most places it's the dominant religion, but that's not to say there's not violence associated with Christianity. The history of Northern Ireland is more complicated than simple religion, but that is an important aspect of the Troubles.

[ErrantX]

Extremely good point; I hadn't considered that.

I'm not sure it entirely invalidates my theory - but it certainly makes it more complex :) cheers.

[bloch]

I understand the reason that this strategy works and why moderates don't actively distance themselves from it. By keeping silent and vague they will benefit from the power that the threat of violence gives. In Denmark there are quite a few places where the police can't operate on normal terms due to the mentality exhibited in the video above.

What I mean by double standard and excuses is the tendency to always add 'reasons' when it comes to islam.

Why do this behavior need to be taken on other terms than personal responsibility and the norms of civil conduct? It's not like the attackers - due to their religious affiliation and reasons derived from this - lack choice.

[ErrantX]

I see what you mean (and I do agree; Islam possibly gets the most "free handouts" of all the religions). But..

Why do this behavior need to be taken on other terms than personal responsibility and the norms of civil conduct?

Clearly on a personal level their actions are their own responsibility and decisions - and are wrong.

But on a macro level there is just a reason why Muslims react this way and others don't. I think it's important to actually set out those reasons because somewhere in there we may begin to find a solution.

[tome]

Sure there's a reason. But it's not an acceptable reason, a tolerable reason, or even a reason that should be the least bit of respect.

[NB I did not downvote you]

[ErrantX]

Absolutely! In case it's not clear you are dead right (I hoped that came across).

[fgf]

From MODERN christianity. Did it get that way trough compromise? Will we get a MODERN islam trough compromise?

[ErrantX]

Absolutely. And many of the moderate Muslims I know are actively fostering that idea.

[fgf]

How will this "compromise" look? What do they give us for their continued moderation?

Could it really be that liberalism, after a 200 (should we count the enlightenment too?) year winning streak (at least), might have found it's kryptonite. The movement that made it safe, legal and even reputable to piss all over christian morals. That made national socialists -- once a formidable force in european politics -- a powerless group with whom any association carries social stigma whose violent elements were easily destroyed. And now, faced with a different enemy, liberals seems to have lost their nerve.