Letters to the Editor
FDuquette
Published Letters: 11 Editor's Choice: 1
-
THEY draw WE pay!
[Read the article: Rotten judgment in the state of Denmark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What really burns me is that rights, such as freedom of speech, carry a price tag. How much are we willing to pay? What do I prefer, the right to travel safely or freedom of speech? One is defended at the expence of the other. How about diminished civil liberities in the name of homeland security - at least our speech is still free, we can complain about the wiretappings, though such complaints may lead to being wiretapped.
I feel burned becuase some Dane cartoonist decided the priority for me, they draw, we pay. The cartoonist kidnaps a sacred icon and assasinates the sacred, and we are shocked by violent reactions (a freedom of speech?) ...all of this was entirely predictable. Christians and JEws should offer qualified support (ie, non-violent) to Muslims and their convictions; we all have a right to the "sacred", and the maintenance of traditions from the divisive effects of hate publications.
-
Muslims protest, I pray
[Read the article: Rotten judgment in the state of Denmark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As protests and violence has happened in the past (other letters have referred to the incidents), I cannot imagine how editors can solicit cartoons, which both caricature and satirize the Muslim Prophet, and not anticipate such a reaction.
It is dangerous to politicize (ie bring into world debate) the sacred, as the rational safety net does not apply; by misunderstanding the nature of faith, those editors confuse genuine faith with rationality. Rationality disconnects one personally from ideas (eg, "...its nothing personal, but there is a flaw in your reasoning."). Faith is the profound opposite. There is room for rational discourse between cultures and religions, but not by taunting or defiling persons.
to think a cartoon is inherently harmless relies on the old "sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me" childhood rhyme; it is a pathetically ignorant approach to dialogue between religions and cultures. Marshall Mcluhan understood the power of media and how it blurs the line between image and reality and the protests evidence this clearly. Muslims protest to protect what is sacred to them and I pray those who understand raise their voices and demand accountability from the media.
-
Protesting the riot of violent protests.
[Read the article: Rotten judgment in the state of Denmark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In simpler linguistic times, we had 'protests' and 'riots"; now we have this strange media creation: the 'violent protest', neither a protest or a riot. It would be interesting to know what proportion of the protests against the cartoons were actually violent or how we define violence. The media certainly provides the view that any Muslim protest on this issue is violent. When does a 'protest' cross the line to a 'violent protest' but not a 'riot'? Is a violent protest different from a soccer riot in the EU, Rodney King trial rioting in L.A. or hockey riots in Montreal? Consider:
IS burning the Dane flag or an effigy a protest? Is it a riot or a violent protest? Is it against the law? What about shouting 'death to denmark" or something?
Riots and insurrections have specific legal definintions and remedies; where rioting has occured over this issue, local policing have acted to control the angry mobs. The reporting of this issue tends to construe protest with threats, extremism and a lack of self-control.
-
Argument for publishing the cartoon
[Read the article: Rotten judgment in the state of Denmark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How can media now not publish the cartoons, given that the reporting on the protests and the discussion about the protests are now world wide. It is one thing to resist publishing the cartoons initially, out of respect for the sacred and desire to avoid unecessary social conflict, but once the "cat is out of the bag" media must report the cause with the effect.
-
Crash test dummies
[Read the article: Introducing the Guilties!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Crash was strangly lacking religion; none of the characters, representing every racial group or urban angst, professed any faith...no muslim crashing with jew clashing with christian. Maybe it had to be that way, else the same characters would have a means to cope with race relations, to transcend destructive urges.
In places where religion matters, where crashes occur, there are typically historical or political pressures that turns religion into identity clashes, as we see in the movie "munich"; what "Crash" did not give us is any insight into what pressures reduce urban living to racial tribalism or how urban living is a secular chaos of random events. Is it the invisible hand of justice? The film was all persona, there was no anima to the characters and like crash test dummies in a lab, the dolls flay about on impact, legs arms and heads all intertwined.
-
Gnosticism
[Read the article: Gospel according to Judas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mr? Kushana,
Sorry for the delayed reponse; you said:
Most forms of Gnosticism, Manichaeism included, derived from Judaism.
I hope Im not sounding too much like you, but to which Judaic texts are you referring?
I always considered gnosticism to be influenced by Plato, (eg the parable of the cave), an obvious source of cosmological dualism (the ontology of appearance and form).Undoubtably, there are many others, so varied were gnostics.
. Judaism is strictly monotheistic: if there is dualism, it is strictly moral, in our free choice between good and evil. Even evil is reigned by God. In Job 1.6-1.12, Satan must give account for himself and must ask permission to act.
Creation is inherently good in Judaism (Genesis). This means it is real, and not an appearance or a distortion.The fall was a moral consequence of human choice, salvation an ethical concern.
Gnosticism, generally, possesses cosmological dualism. For example we see that in the transition from spirit to matter, the world is wrought by a tragic flaw, passion, or sin in one of the Æons. Basilides intuits it as a flaw in the last sonship. What of the maternal yearnings - is the world the pregnant emanations of the inflamed and hungered passions of the female Æon Sophia? Perhaps it goes all the way to the top: it is the sin of the Great Archon, or Æon-Creator, of the Universe.
So I argue that Judaism is generally monotheistic in which dualism is a moral problem of free choice and ethics; with whatever one might generalize gnosticism to be, it is more of a cosmological split between spirit and matter.