UC Baseball 16-8!

I agree with Tariq Ramadan that this is a determination whether or not different parties or people "Have the capacity to be free, rational (believer or atheist), and, at the same time, reasonable." I feel that it is important that the Muslim nation be able to express their disapproval toward the cartoons that were published, however, I feel that it is also important how they express themselves. If they were to form a non violent protest or be critical of the author that that would be okay, but if their form of protest were to be a mass shooting of people I would obviously be against this. The should be different levels of reaction to different actions and that it is possible to relate this to everyday life. If you have a friend that is making fun of you and you want to show him you do not appreciate it, the appropriate response would not to take a two by four and smack it across his face when a simple that's enough would do. I also feel that Traiq brings up a good point when he says "Also excessive and irresponsible is the invoking of the "right of freedom of expression"-- to give oneself the right to say anything, in any way, against anybody." There are ways that are appropriate to express oneself and you do not have absolute freedom of expression. There are certain lines that government set up and if crossed punishments are invoked. People should not be able to express themselves by intimidating a particularly person or group of people. Traiq brings up many interesting arguments about how different cultures need to understand how to express themselves to each other and need to set up a general standard.

blog

I have to be honest, Professor Sorensen, after coming home today I found out that I did not have the CIE readings book with me. I did not want to take another trip to school in this weather. Anyhow, I am basing all of my opinions off of the other blog posts. I get the impression that the author was discussing how we, the United States should make efforts to understand and mingle our culture with the Islamic culture. I also understand that there was an offensive cartoon up for some debate. I do not agree that we should have such restrictions on free speech as mentioned by some of my other classmates. I do not like the idea that we only have free speech if it builds up another group of people. This is a bunch of bs. If this was true, no political cartoons would be in existence, and there would be a very uniform way of thought conveyed in the media (it still is, but it should not be so). The only restriction on free speech should be not to place someone in danger. You do not want to scream “fire” in a hallway full of people. You do not want to make bomb threats that are not really there. Other than this one restriction on free speech, we have the right to say anything. Well, the objection I am going to get is that it offends other people, a large group of people. Well, do we not have a right to offend people? If the US did not speak out against Great Britain during the times of the Revolutionary War, then we would still be living under its rule. I also understand that these offensive remarks are based off of ignorance, and have no merit. Touché, but I cannot tell you how many times I have heard jokes discriminating against Catholics, Jews, Gays, Blondes, etc! I believe that it would be better to have the Muslims just ignore the offensive remarks than tell everyone to stop saying them. I would not want to tell anyone that they should do this or that. Personally, I want to learn more about the Islamic culture for my own benefit. I do not enjoy hurting others, but I do not think I should tell everyone to behave the same way. I have the right to tell everyone to treat everyone with equality (the right to free speech), but then again, they have the right to disobey that mandate.

Tolerance and Respect= Peace Among Societies

Ramadan states “We are at the crossroad. The time has come for women and men who reject the dangerous divisions into two worlds to start building bridges between two universes that share common values” (156). I agree completely with Ramadan. In order for the world to find some peace, the Islamic community and western communities must learn to at least tolerate one another. Clearly, the current solutions (the war, the cartoons, the protests) are not helping the situation. The two societies cannot function among the presence of one another, if the western culture does not understand that the Muslim presence is valuable to the western society. Ramadan says “People must begin to learn once again that Muslim thought, ever since the Middle Ages, has been an integral part of the construction of Western development” (171). At the same time, the Muslim community needs to make adjustments as well and realize that western culture is important too. Both cultures need to appreciate the other.
Currently the situation is polarized and continually getting worse. The Danish cartoon is an example of the ignorance, and intolerant behavior that polarizes the two societies from one another. We must respect one another and not see the other side as “them”. Every person involved in this situation is a human. Therefore, each person deserves not to be categorized and disrespected by the other. I agree with Ramadan that legislation will not cure the problems between the two communities. As humans we should be able to restrain ourselves from being malicious, prejudice, and narrow-minded behaviors. We all have multiple identities as Ramadan explains. These multiple identities learn to coincide with one another despite the fact they may conflict. Just like the case of individual identities, the communities must cooperate and cope with one another. For the good of both societies, mutual respect and tolerance must be established. Together, the societies have to agree to make changes, and as Ramadan says “It is up to us to choose” (156).

I agree with a point Tariq Ramadan makes in “At the crossroad of Islam, the West”. He brings up the issue about freedom of speech. I agree that it is not necessary to evoke that law in certain circumstances such as the issue about the cartoons. It’s one thing to speak your mind, but it is another thing to publish racial and religious insults, especially if it is against a culture’s beliefs to represent their God or profits so they don’t create any kind of idolatry. Although societies have different views on how people should represent their thoughts and ideas, the societies should also respect the wishes of other cultures that do not have similar opinions. And those societies should certainly not continue to publish or even increase the amount of published cartoons if the cultures that do not agree with the cartoons tell them that they are hurtful. Also, the editors of the paper should have taken a hint when many of the journalists from the paper were not comfortable with the cartoons that were supposed to be published.
Yes, one might think that- hey, no matter what we do, someone’s feelings will always be hurt. Although this might be true, people should just learn to respect other cultures beliefs and traditions, and don’t continue to say the mean things when others are obviously hurt by it. That is just cruel if one chooses to not respect someone’s beliefs. So, in the issue dealing with the Danish cartoon and the Muslims, I agree with Ramadan that freedom of speech should not have to apply when pertaining to racial and religious insults.

Muslim Cartoon

In his piece, “At the Crossroad of Islam, the West,” Tariq Ramadan portrays how freedom of speech and a difference in cultural views can easily cause uncomfortable feelings between two races. This was shown in the example of the cartoon. On one hand, you have a race that developed a cartoon with what they say as trivial humor. They did not see this as “crossing the line” on the views or beliefs of the Muslims. However, on the other hand, the Muslim race felt that the cartoon was making fun of them and saw the cartoon as offensive and “out of line.” Ramadan writes, “Freedom of expression is not absolute” (156). I have to agree with him. Freedom of speech and expression should not be free from restrictions. People should not be allowed to just go around saying hateful things about another race just because they can. We need to learn to respect the different beliefs and opinions of different races, cultures, and religions, even if they are not what we agree with. We as Americans would not like it if another culture bashed our culture; just as others cultures do not like it when we make fun of theirs. A simple resolution to this is the Golden Rule – treat others the way you want to be treated and respect the ideas of different cultures.

The Self-Critical Approach

Tariq Ramadan introduces the Danish cartoon controversy in his article, “At the crossroad of Islam, the West.” The main problem lies in having the right of freedom of speech vs. freedom of religion. I agree with Ramadan when he says citizens should be called upon to, “exercise their right to freedom of expression responsibly and take into account the diverse sensitivities that compose our pluralistic contemporary societies.” I agree that this, as opposed to legislation, would be the solution. Censorship is certainly not the answer, and as Ramadan stated, the Muslim citizens aren’t looking for censorship, just more respect. The self-critical approach definitely seems to be the best option. As Ramadan states in his second article, “What the West can Learn from Islam”, “We must turn our backs on a vision that posits us against them and understand that our shared citizenship is the key factor in building the society of the future together.” As Ramadan states, there is much that we can learn from the Muslim culture and in order to make the most out of this there should be a self-governed level of respect and tolerance for this culture that may be very different from what one is used to. We must look for shared values such as social justice, which the Quran mentions and commands of Muslims. At the end of his second article Ramadan states; “learning how to respect the feelings, the loves, and the complexities of those who do not share our faith, nor our entire memory, but with whom we must build our future together” [is essential]. Basically, I agree with Ramadan in his belief that instead of legislation/laws we must be self-governed and be more respectful of those who we might not have shared the past with, but whom we inevitably will be sharing a future with.

On not so Free Freedome

One privileged we have in the West is the freedom of speech; the freedom to express ourselves however we want. Or really? Can we really say whatever we want on anything? Tariq Ramadan doesn't think so. In his short essay on the controversial Danish cartoons, he makes a claim on freedom of speech: it is not absolute; it is something that must be practiced with restraint. But then he goes on to say that we must do it through education of respect for others, and not out of reasonless censorship. We should restrain ourselves out of respect, rather then out of necessity. Ramadan thinks that it is easier and more effective to teach and enforce respect rather then making it a arbitrary law.
Now, Ramadan is completely right about our concept of freedom of speech. Our freedom given by the First should not be a go ahead to verbally trash anyone and everyone. Rather, it is a right to be able to say anything so long as it is supported by reason, respect, and responsibility for what one says. We should practice our freedom of speech as an opportunity to strengthen our ties with others, not to put them down. But I believe, in contrast to Ramadan, that we can use the law to promote it by using it as a deterrence from abusing free speech. Educating and informing people is good, but the law can also serve as a tool to promote respect as well. And not only would it promote the good practice of free speech, it would protect from those who choose to talk without respect, acting as a safeguard from those who choose not to show respect on their own. By this we can protect everyone's rights and promote healthier relationships among all people through both education and the power of the law.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

I agree with Tariq Ramadan’s belief that it is completely possible for the West and Islam to coexist if we do attempt to solve the conflict rationally. In his article, “At the crossroad of Islam, West,” Ramadan argues that both sides, Islam and the West, are failing to approach this conflict reasonably. He sees the need for both sides to cut each other some slack and attempt to view the conflict from the other’s perspective. In regards to the comic that Danish Muslims found to be offensive, Ramadan feels that the newspaper should have been sensitive to Islam’s tenant of never depicting God or a prophet. Yet, the Muslims should not express their anger too vehemently because Western culture finds it acceptable to criticize their own religious icons, thus not realizing the offensiveness of the comic. He preaches trying to understand both sides of the conflict; that “learning to keep an intellectual critical distance” is important to keeping the conflict from ending horribly (155). In conjunction with the rationality advocated by Ramadan is the idea of respect. If we are to be considerate of each other’s beliefs, we are essentially respecting each other’s back grounds. As he wrote, “the Muslim citizens are not asking for more censorship but for more respect” (156). I agree with Tariq Ramadan’s argument. We need to have more tolerance for people who are different than ourselves in all aspects, not only those with religious differences. At the end of the day, we should respect each other, despite our differences, because we all share a common humanity. Humans are not only linked biologically, but also linked in our ability to rationalize, our higher intellect, and our emotions. We should then treat everyone as people that are really not so different, even when we do not share our beliefs. I feel that in this situation communication, compromise and keeping an open mind are essential to ending this conflict without some form of war. War would not solve this issue; rather, it would create a world in which a set of beliefs is suppressed by the victor, creating more animosity between the religions. As Ramadan said, “the worst can be possible between two universities of reference when they become deaf to each other and are seduced by defining themselves against the other” (156). Rationality and respect are the keys to concluding this conflict, if only both sides are willing to stop and compromise.

Free Speech

In the article about the Danish cartoon in the newspaper, Ramadan brings up an important point: free speech should be self legislated. I agree with Ramadan's point, it is hard to put laws about what can be said under free speech. It is not hard, however, for a person to put moral boundaries on what they choose to call free speech. When it comes to the actually cartoon, the newspaper should have realized that the cartoon was wrong, especially by the amount of journalists who were uncomfortable with the whole issue. Freedom of speech is a great thing but it should not be used to insult other cultures, especially by going against a religions rule about the image of god. It's not just that the Muslim's were insulted, it's that the newspaper broke a rule of their religion. Just because it is okay to draw Jesus and God does not mean it is okay to draw Muhammad or other Islamic prophets. It is understandable that the Muslim people were offended by this cartoon. If I were to start using my free speech to actively insult everyone's mother, people would be offended and would think I should stop. This is the same thing, by publishing a caricature of Muhammad in the newspaper they may as well have insulted every Muslim's mother (of course the cartoon is more insulting and extreme than insulting mother's but the same concept still applies).

Ramadan Readings

I agree with the claim put forth by Tariq Ramadan in his article "What the West Can Learn From Islam" when he says, "We all possess multiple identities, and we must...put forward the values we share" (169).  Even though this claim is rather basic and general, I think it is an essential point to Romadan's argument concerning ethnic cooperation.  I will use myself as an example.  I'm an American, but I'm also Swiss-German and Hungarian and Roman Catholic.  I have several different identities that all make up a significant piece of who I am as a person.  Sure, I do have some traditions from each that I strictly adhere to, but the mixing of these traditions is also an important aspect of my life.  Also, the similarities between the traditions and cultures are more numerous than one could imagine.  I think this is the point Ramadan is trying to prove.  Westerners have blended and mixed many of their traditions while still retaining some individual authenticity.  From what it sounds, Muslims have a fairly difficult time doing this.  They strictly maintain their traditional customs and do not mix well with new ideals.  This is definitely an area that Ramadan thinks Muslims need to work on (and I might also agree with this point as well).  However, Ramadan does say that Westerners should ease off a little on the satire because the Islamic culture does not appreciate it.  They have a hard time understanding the joke in many of their seeming controversial statements.  But getting back to the main claim that I agree with, the central idea of multiple identities is important to western culture and should be incorporated more in Muslim and Islamic culture.  With the blending of these traditions, we can seem more similarities between the cultures than we could have ever imagined.  Perhaps (and it's more of an "I know") there exists basic similarities that could unite and tie the different western and Islamic cultures together and form a firm relationship between the two halves of the same coin.  I most certainly agree that there are separate identities that have similarities that have the potential to unite us all.

Hurumph

In this blog I will play a role. I just wanted to state this so I did not come off as a bigot regarding this subject matter. Logically though, this position is extremely valid. In every exaggeration there is a grain of truth. We, the people of the West, should not have to curb our lifestyle and the way we express ourselves to meet the demand of any group, be it political or religious. Regarding the Danish cartoon, the editors should not have to apologize to anyone out of principal, only if they want to salvage a few Muslim subscriptions. We would not ask the Muslims who were offended by this cartoon to shut up and stop believing that it is wrong to represent Muhammad in a drawing or image, so why should they seek to impose their beliefs on us? Why should we not be allowed to take a pencil that is rightfully ours and a sheet of paper that is rightfully ours and express an idea that is rightfully ours, no matter what it is? It would be different if the Muslim population was forced to buy this newspaper and forced to look at this cartoon, but they are not. If they are offended, they should not look at it. I am offended by racism, so I refuse to subscribe to “Ku Klux Klan Monthly” because I will be offended by its content. But at the same time, no matter how low I feel about the people who would publish such garbage, I do not make them apologize to me, or try to hurt them or change their mind, they have the right to believe and say whatever they wish. So I decline Ramadan’s notion that we should not reproduce the image of Muhammad to respect the beliefs of others (beliefs that do not cause physical harm, unlike “Murder is bad”) as this is instilling those beliefs onto us unfairly and tramples on our freedom to think the way we like. Instead, it imposes religious beliefs of others upon us, jeopardizing our rights.

Embracing Islamic Culture

 

I agree with Tariq when he claims that the West runs a risk of “seeing itself as a monolithic whole, as a civilization based exclusively on Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian tradition, to whose specific nature Islam is an outsider.”  I feel that today, many people feel superior toward Islam.  Likewise, many people association it with terrorism and other negative connotations.  If we strive to blend in some elements of Islam into our culture which is fundamentally based on the foundations he discusses, this will in turn eliminate many of the fears and negative aspects of Islam.  We need to slowly introduce Islam into our culture.  Tariq also states that Islam is based on love; Judaism and Christianity are also based on this general concept.  Tariq also follows that claim with the statement, “the upshot is that Muslims, even though they are citizens, are seen as a problem rather than as partners in a solution.”  In the end we can see that the Islamic religion is not that far off from Judaism and Christianity.  Christianity is an evolutionary doctrine based on many Judeo-Christian principles.  It seems as though Islam follows the trend in borrowing ideals from the past doctrine in that Islam contains Christian elements as well as other elements pertaining solely to Islam preached by the prophet Muhammad.  To reiterate again, Islam is not as divergent as many people like to presume.  Of course, there are going to be perversions, but there are Christians and Jews who interpret their respective religions in negative ways as well solely to benefit themselves.  I just feel as though Islam has been dealt an enormous set back with the tragedy of September 11^th, Whabbistists and Islamic Fundamentalism.  Christianity has been associated with many negative historical situations: inquisitions, burning at the stake etc.  I feel as though in time we may slowly learn to embrace Islam and slowly incorporate its fundamentals into our society.  Who knows, maybe we have already welcomed Islamic ideals into our patchwork of spiritual views that we call religion today in the West.  

Blog Assn #19: Ramadan

Please post to the blog by Tuesday, April 14th, 8:00 PM, on the following topic.

Offer arguments for or against one of Tariq Ramadan's claims.

The Browning reading made me come to the conclusion that these men did not kill the Jews because of anti-Semitism. These men “were from the lower orders of German society…very few were economically independent…virtually none had any education after leaving school at age 14 or 15” (122). This shows that these men were dependant on the military for jobs, and the military was a great solution for living a good life. I believe this is the main reason these men became killers, they felt obligated to for their job, to support themselves and their families.
A less significant reason for these people to become killers is because they felt like they would be cowards if they did not complete their assignment. In the reading, Browning stated, “One said that he had not wanted to be considered a coward by his comrades. Another- more aware of what truly required courage- said quite simply: “I was cowardly.” These men wanted to live up to their jobs, and they felt like if they did not live up to them, they would be considered a coward- one thing many men would never want to be called in that era. Mainly, I believe these men wanted to maintain what they felt, was their dignity. Yes, it can be argued that by becoming a killer a person has no dignity. However, by having “success” in their jobs, being promoted, etc. These men felt like they had courage and dignity.

I believe that these people became killer not because of the hatred for the Jewish people but because of their low status. These people were not good enough to be able to join the German army, so they were dispersed amongst ghettos to help transport people into camps. It was said in that "These orders were not to his liking, either, but they came from above" which means that they did not really want to do it but they had to. It was like being given an assignment from a boss, if you didn't perform the given task then you would be punished, but in this instance death probably would occur due to their insubordination. However, when the task was given the option was given that if anyone wanted to step down they could do to the grotesque task. When one man stepped out and didn't want to participate in the orders he was berated by one of the soldiers. It seems that some of these men didn't want to be looked as weak and cowards. The people that Browning talked about, seemed to kill because it was an order given to them and was apart of their job, along with the fact they didn't want to be looked upon as cowards.

blog assignment

The irony of Browning’s story is that the battalion became killers for the same reason that the death camp prisoners refused to fight. The people that did the killing were dehumanized to the extent that they did not have a will or a choice over their actions. The killers proceeded with robotic efficiency because that is what the Nazi regime made them into—robots. Their own identity was stripped, and instead they were simply part of a cause. This is a perfect example of how defining oneself by an organization can get out of hand. When a person sees his or herself as a follower of Nazism, one’s own personal opinions are suppressed. This tendency is ever common in society today. Our own military does not question orders given by superiors for the same reason. One can say that it is different in Browning’s case, that these men had a choice. I am willing to assert that these men lost their sense of self, and therefore their ability to choose. They only could do what they are told to do. Dr. Sorensen, you once asked me, when we were talking about the river between, if there was any evidence to support that personal choice is better than relying on the community for identification. This is one of the best examples to support that the answer is yes! The prisoners in the death camps also lost their own identity, they were dehumanized. This is what made the prisoners able to take orders from SS officers so easily. Human nature has such an incredible down side, an evil side. For the sake of conformity, we are all able to turn so quickly. Even in the film we saw today, the Holocaust survivors were surprised and saddened at how their own neighbors and friends mocked them as they left for the death camp. Group conformity blurs absolutes. As a kid, I was always told, “what is popular is not always right, what is right is not always popular.” I am beginning to think that this phase is much more difficult to follow than meets the eye. How does one know what is right? Is there such an absolute? The Battalion that did the killings held no such clear-cut right and wrong. It was extinguished by the group.

Browning

Browning talks about a certain group of men who were responsible for “clearing ghettos and massacring Jews outright during the blitzkrieg against Polish Jewry” (123). These men were basically in charge of shooting and killing the Jews. But what made them become killers? Browning explains that these men had the idea that they had to do this drilled into their heads. They did not agree with the fact that they had to shoot innocent people, but they knew “orders were orders and had to be carried out” (124). Ironically; however, Browning gives examples of men not feeling comfortable with the task they were commanded to do. These men would ask their comrades for a different task (not having to actually shoot the Jews), and most of the time they would be granted permission. Also, these men became killers because many of them felt like they had no choice but to do what they were told. If they did not perform their duty, then they would be looked down upon by their comrades. Browning writes, “One said that he had not wanted to be considered a coward by his comrades” (127). Many times the men would drink alcohol to help make the job seem easier. These men did not want to be shooting these Jews, and very often they would either intentionally miss their targets or blame it on the alcohol. They just had to make it seem like they wanted to in fear of losing their life.