Comments on: Muhammed Cartoons Publisher: Apologies, No Regrets

By: Angela Winters

Angela Winters — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:02:08 +0000

If he had to say anything, it would be that it wasn’t meant to hurt any feelings of peaceful members of the Muslim faith, but I wouldn’t apologize to anyone. They may have been offending as I am when people belittle Jesus, but no one has to apologize for not feeling the same way about Jesus that I do.

The problem here wasn’t peaceful Muslims. Radical muslims will take to the streets and start burning buildings if they get a bad hangnail, so no one needs to apologize to them.

By: domajot

domajot — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 07:24:04 +0000

Diplomacy is for saying what you think without poking a finger in the other guy’s eye.
I prefer it whnever possible..

To be tactful is not the same as lying, and iit’s perfectly legitmate to ackowledge another’s feelings without assuming responsibility for or guilt about those feelings.

I regret being iin disagreement once again, but in the West, we often have different ideas about how best to handle touchy situations. (hahaha)

BTW, if it was a Christian group upset about a Monty Python movie, I would say the same thing: “I’m sorry you are upset, but in our view, this is a just a funny movie.”

By: Lynx

Lynx — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:12:51 +0000

There were two ways to go, the diplomatic way and the truth, he tried both. The diplomatic way involves lying of course, he doesn’t give a damn that it offended Muslims I’m sure. It’s just like when that opera was canceled because if featured the heads of many religious icons, including Mohammed. They said they canceled it out of “respect” when what they really did was cancel it out of fear.

The double standard with Christian icons shows that it’s not respect but fear that drives them. Sorry, everyone or no one. Either all religious (and why just religious?) sensibilities are given the same respect or none of them are. Personally I think that those oh so offended need to learn that in the West, freedom of speech is considered quite sacred in it’s own right.

Mind you, I don’t think too many were REALLY offended. Much of it was pretend “how DARE you” outrage, some of it was just violent people who wanted an excuse to be violent (like those who were so offended by the violent portrayal of Islam that they killed an elderly nun…who worked in a children’s charity hospital) and probably the vast majority rolled their eyes and wondered if their so-called leaders didn’t have about a million more important things to worry about.

By: Michael van der Galien

Michael van der Galien — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:55:12 +0000

But he’s lying. He’s not sorry they’re offended. He’s sorry that it caused such a firestorm because life became uncomfortable for him, but he probably thinks ‘y’all got to learn to become more tolerant.’

He doesn’t have to say that, indeed, but than don’t say anything on that subject. Answer questions, but don’t say “i regret..”

By: domajot

domajot — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:05:05 +0000

It will not surprise you, MVDG, to hear that I don’t agree. A confrontational manner might satisfy one’s ego, but it doesn’t do anything to address the problem.

In my view, the correct restponse would be to express regret that this caused Muslims to feel insulted, while NOT expressing regret for publishing the cartoons in the first place.
It was a good opportuniry to explain how these matters are handled in the West. Our own religious communities often feel offended without expressing their cristicism by rioting.
I absolutely do not recommend the preachy tone of telling Muslims what they are doing wrong. It should be enough to just explain why things are done a certain way in the West. If the explanation does not convince, preaching at them paternalistically certainly won’t.