For your consideration: Submission

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, February 13, 2006 06:40
VIEWED: 1378
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 6:06 PM

The 10 minute film that got the film-maker killed.
An absolute slap in the face of devout fundimentalist Muslim wife abusers, I must say.

I can see why they'd be crabbed.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=846339861805446088&q=submissio
n+Van+Gogh

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 9, 2006 2:14 AM

I really hope someone here takes a look at this...
AHHHCHOOO*bump*
Bless ya!

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, February 9, 2006 4:35 AM

It strikes me that what passes for zealous rage might actually be a meticulously calculated strategy. Leaving aside the discouraging factor for a minute, that if you kill people who oppose islam, others might be afraid to, there's a less subtle point. If you kill someone who makes a short film, you stop them from making a sweeping epic drama about the struggle of muslim women ten years from now that millions of people may see.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 9, 2006 6:30 PM

But they wouldn't DARE bomb Hollywood!!

It's a mythical land Chrisisall

MILAGROBEAN

Sunday, February 12, 2006 3:52 PM

I'm surprised, with all the vehement discussion on other threads, no one is commenting on this film. I've pasted a link to an interview w/ Hirsi Ali, the filmmaker, politician, and courageous woman, who continues to speak out even with death threats piling up on her head.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/07/hirsi_ali/index.html

Here's an article about her and the Dutch reaction to Theo Van Gogh's death.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/11/60minutes/main679609.shtml

One can debate the relative merits of Islam and Christianity for 100 years and then some. And certainly the oppression of women is not restricted to Islam. But any religion/culture/worldview that believes women are inferior human beings and condones the murder and rape of their mothers and sisters will not be getting kudos or "understand it from their point of view" empathy from this small corner of the world. Do any of you find this a major stumbling block?

I used to go to CCD with friends of mine when I was a teenager. I was raised a Unitarian Universalist and was curious about other religions. The lay teacher welcomed me. The group was in the middle of putting together a youth Mass. It was creative and fun and holy. Well, when the priest nixed the participation of the girls (ideas ok, being up there on Sunday, no way) I was out of there. And I wasn't even threatened with death!

milagrobean

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, February 12, 2006 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I really hope someone here takes a look at this...

I’ve seen it before. The Muslim culture has some serious problems, not the least of them is their treatment of women, and the barbaric reaction of certain broad segments to anyone who disputes their religious opinions. But this is not news.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

FLETCH2

Sunday, February 12, 2006 6:53 PM

Does beg one question that actually has Firefly tie-ins.

We know that they have things "wrong" with them. Do we attampt to "fix" it (ie meddle with their culture) or do we tolerate them even though some of them pose a threat?

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 12, 2006 10:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Does beg one question that actually has Firefly tie-ins.

We know that they have things "wrong" with them. Do we attempt to "fix" it (ie meddle with their culture) or do we tolerate them even though some of them pose a threat?

Interesting idea, Fletch.
I'd say, cultures that we disagree with, no.
Cultures that oppress their people....no.
Cultures that kill their people, a qualified yes (qualification being: if their people want to be killed, then we should stay out of it).

We can't "fix" everybody's problems (we have enough of our own right here to deal with), but I'd say socially condoned murder is the line we draw at which 'cultural differences' moves into barbaric and brutal sub-human behaviour.

Not that I'm judging anyone

"The line must be drawn here, NOW!!" Picardisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, February 12, 2006 10:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
We can't "fix" everybody's problems (we have enough of our own right here to deal with), but I'd say socially condoned murder is the line we draw at which 'cultural differences' moves into barbaric and brutal sub-human behaviour.

That makes a lot of sense, and I think it is a line that Joss intended to draw in Firefly as well. There is a line between meddling with their culture and defending ourselves.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

DREAMTROVE

Monday, February 13, 2006 1:38 AM

Fletch,

I don't think this is the case. There are a few people who seek to 'fix' Islam, but that's a disasterously bad idea. I think there are basically two rules that societies ought to abide by that are very easy to convince pretty much everyone of, without really changing their society:

1. Don't kill the rest of us. If your society is violently on the offensive against everyone else, everyone else will likely be violently offensive against you, since no one is in a majority, this is bad for everyone.

2. Every society should have one freedom, and that's all it needs: the freedom to leave. If a society has the freedom of its citizens to leave, then yes, ultimately it will have to treat its citizens well enough that they don't want to leave. But this does not involve *us* telling *them* how to fix it, it will just fix itself.

In argument to someone who would say "but this alters our society" I say "your society was altering anyway." If a society doesn't have freedom to leave, then the people who hate your society are now trapped inside it, and they are going to hate it more and more, and they are going to work from within to destroy your society.

Salman Rushdie really does very little damage to Islam. He left, and yapped about what was wrong with Islam which was taken in very well by western jewish intellectuals, who ate it up, but were not dissuaded from their faith because they were already not muslims, and unlikely to become so.

By contrast, the Soviet Union was systematically undone from the inside by people who wanted capitalism, but couldn't get it. This started really in Eastern Europe and worked it's way east into Russia. But if the Soviets had allowed these people to leave, they would be hating the communists from the west, preaching their views on the evils of the USSR to an eager, and probably paying, western audience. This would have not only meant that they would not have destroyed the Soviet Union, but that the Soviets would have had to have evolved in some way that would make the iron curtain European actually want to stay.

1 2 NEXT PAGE