Bullshit, there are unflattering depictions of Jesus and Christianity all over the place. Muslims didn't get up in arms over an "artistic" rendition of a crucifix dipped in urine, and that's just one example. And why should they? They have their own ridiculous taboos to deal with. Is it "antagonistic" to Christians? Of course it is. I find it pretty ******** antagonistic when some random author paints secularism as a front for xenophobia when, from my perspective, it's the best and most moral way to deal with religions in politics. It's called an exchange of ideals, and poking at other culture's uncomprehensible taboos is part of that.
Muslims aren't martyrs persecuted for their religion, as many would love to paint them as. If anything taboos in the west make it vastly easier to insult Christianity than Islam, because it isn't possible to cry xenophobia. If the majority of the immigration to Europe was Hindu, a people who famously don't give too much of a shit about religions and are tolerant of whatever lunacy people like to believe, there would be xenophobic propaganda about Hindus. It's not linked to the religion, and as much as people talk of "disease" it's completely ******** natural.
You either misinterpret what I said or you completely missed the point. Honestly, I do not understand one bit the point you are trying to making. Is it a language barrier I do not know, but your post is completely irrelevent to the discussion. And funnily enough, I've already seen some xenophobic propaganda going on about your point on Indians, but it's more based on looks and skin colour than anything else. Calling an Indian a Paki for example. Even more offensive than calling a Pakistani a Paki.
When did Muslims even martyr for their religion. Last I checked, they were too busy killing their own kin.
I understand the exchange of ideals but it is not even slightly the most 'moral' way to deal with religions in politics. Not even close. It's in fact horrible and a good way to start tension between people. Some might argue the most moral way is to not put religion in politics in the first place. Breeds too much of a clusterfuck when you put countries of different majority faith together. I've not seen any system completely work, but not putting religion in politics have proven to work to a good extent.
Did the man even slam the common moderate, secular muslims for being xenophobic? Honestly if he did, then I did not see it. At all. He had two paragraphs on people who he accuses are for no apparent reason, ashamed of their origin, culture and religion. Accuse might even be too accusory of a term to use on him ironically, as he merely pointed out that there's an apparent double standard in their reactions in similar issue concerning two different parties. At this point, I've to conclude that you're just pushing your own agenda and bullshitting me.
Also stop censoring yourself. If you want to type out shit **** ****, do it. Or don't insert it into your language.
Edit : Also if it were up to my natural instincts, I would had killed you and sold your organs rather than try to form a discussion with you. That's my culture's initial form of xenophobia. Disease might be too harsh a label for it, but it's still pointing to the right direction. If something is broken, we fix it. Humans always have. Why stop at more touchy things like this and say "**** it, we'll leave it be since it's in our nature."
Well his point was exactly your point. Though the article, I admit, is not written in the most direct fashion. And I would disagree with the generalisation you are saying you are seeing. I'm not seeing that at all.
Just for a test.
Of course Ayatollah Khamenei is a Muslim, as was Ayatollah Khomeini, as is the entire ruling elite of the Islamic Republic with zero tolerance for dissent. Ayatollah Khomeini was never a fuller figure of Muslim authority than the instance when with one stroke of his pen he ordered the mass execution of political prisoners in Iran. Of course every single Muslim - particularly these "religious intellectuals" (as they call themselves) - is accountable for the vicious tortures at Kahrizak and other torture chambers of the Islamic Republic.
What do you see from this.
I disagree with it. You could maybe make the case for all iranian shiites that support the regime. Why would some random sunni muslim immigrant living in, say, Paris, take the blame for what some lunatic rulling a country half a continent away says is "the truth"? Who decided that the Ayatollah was a figure of muslim authority? The muslim idendity is just as fragmented and divided as any other religion, based on ethnicity and schisms.
Then I've to conclude that you didn't read the whole thing or you only read excerpts here and there, thinking it a straight news piece. Put into context to that article, that excerpt was so sarcastic hot sauce was coming out of a cow's anus.
