"neo-Nazis"
I wouldn't go there. neo-Nazis are scum. They'd be great for fertilizer and that's about it.
I liked this article btw. I tend to agree: the riots aren't about religion. Anything will do as an outlet for islamic extremists.
http://grani.ru/Culture/essay/rubinstein/p.101518.html
No, you did it on purpose!
It is a complex topic, what can you say? What can offend someone is not always understandable, and in that sense if someone really wants to be offended, he will find a reason.
Recently I was in the Moscow Metro and in a big hurry. In my haste, I accidentally bumped into a man. I immediately apologized, but at the same time I was excusing myself there followed a blow to my back. "What's that for?" I asked, dumbfounded. "Why did you push me?" he replied. "But I apologized." "And why should I care that you apologized?" "But I didn't do it on purpose!" "No, you did it on purpose!" Exhausting my reserves of arguments, I went on my way.
I think that it is reasonable to be offended if the offending party did it consciously. To be offended by awkwardness or tactlessness is neither practical nor smart. In general, the more confident a person is that he is right, then the less touchy he is about something.
Cultural differences and traditions should also be remembered. Let us assume that a word in some language means something like holiness or virtuousness, but in another language it sounds like something very indecent and insulting to someone's national feelings. What can you do?
To depict a prophet in a very foolish context is a great sin in Islamic tradition, but not in Christian tradition, or at least sometimes. There are even atheistic traditions, but these too have won for themselves the right to exist.
So, some Viking joker drew two or three pictures (and not very good ones, by the way), and they got published in some local newspaper over there. So what? Who would have noticed, had it not been for the cries of the offended?
And so it went. The offended now threaten and rattle sabers, demanding apologies and sanctions, demanding clampdowns and punishments. Others, just to spite the offended, reprint these pictures in their newspapers, this defending their right to this freedom. That is also pretty silly, but it is more intelligible and nearer to me personally. I understand that people, whose profession and work are connected with speaking, writing, drawing, singing, and filming, are inclined to be nervous whenever the discussion turns to putting limits on creative freedom.
I am not justifying it, but I understand. I understand, because I am one of those, who hold the concept of freedom no less piously than someone else may hold sacred something else. They say, however, that religious feelings are a special subject. No joking. But why are they special? Why no jokes? If it was a case of 'in a hanged man's house don't mention a rope', then I could understand, but why here? Is it an unhealthy topic, in this sense? But why is it unhealthy? That is, I understand, that this topic can be unhealthy for those who do not have strong faith, but if they do believe strongly, then why?
I am not a very religious person, but it seems to be that if I were, then I would discuss the matter this way: say a person said, drew, or sculpted something that in one way or another insulted my religious sensitivities. Yes, he is committing sacrilege and blasphemy, but he is an unreasonable, unhappy heathen, who does not know or understand what I know and understand. I have faith and I am happy. He does not have faith and he is wretched and deprived.
I would pray for him and for his straying soul, since he does not know what he is doing. If he is worthy of punishment, then I, as man of faith, know that it is for someone other than myself to punish him.
Lev Rubenstein
February 3rd, 2006 17:52