Loopoo wrote:I'm not saying we deserve more respect cause we're "more equal", it's just he deliberately makes fun of the religion, using only stereotypes and nothing factual in it at all. He portrays the idea that all Muslims are dynamite-wielding, turban-headed freaks who reproduce at the speed of light.
Let me offer a more detailed account of my analysis.
Reading the OP, because it contains no obvious traces of satire against its own style or anything, I attribute its islamic style simply to romanticism. Why the author chose the islamic style as target for his romanticism, I cannot tell -- maybe he has a predilection for islamic culture; maybe he just wanted his declaration of war to sound epic, and an islamic expression was the first which popped into his head -- but it is of little import. The point is that, since it was supposed to be romantic, it, more or less by definition, has to invoke stereotypes -- the same thing could have been done with Christendom, by invoking images of archangels with flaming swords, crusaders clad in red crosses, the Ark of the Covenant, dying in the name of God and what have you; or any other style with some related stereotypes, for that matter. I can see no traces of him "mocking the religion" or "pissing on it", and I think this should be obvious to anyone. If anything, I think it was well done and if it had been done in a Christian style, I, coming from the Christian parts of the world (though atheist), would feel flattered rather than insulted.
Add to this some observations about the contemporary world:
A) There are lots of crazy muslims in the world killing people in the name of Allah and Jihad.
B) Because of A, there are haters of Islam abound in the western world.
C) Probably as a repercussion from World War II and the mistakes of Hitler (to quote J.R.R. Tolkien: "I have in this War a burning private grudge [...] against that ruddy little ignoramus Adolf Hitler[...]. Ruining, perverting, misapplying, and making for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light."), there are lots of cultural relativists trying to uphold the equality of all cultures. Like all socialists and other collectivists*, they would rather diminish the glory of western civilization than admit that any other culture would be worse in any aspect whatever -- even if it has to go through the laying of western culture in ruins, blood and ashes. Unfortunately, they have managed to make themselves into the current political correctness.
D) Because of C, and because B is obviously an expression of some cultures being different, it is currently popular and politically correct to defend muslims in everything and to denounce the crazy muslims as "not true muslims" (because, as we all know, Islam is the religion of love); and politically incorrect to even mention the word "Jihad" (except as something that "not true muslims"** do). This is true both of muslims and non-muslims***.
Since it is so hard to ascribe any islamic insult to the OP, I drew the conclusion that your reaction to the OP must have been a reflection of D as a result of Islamic stereotypes (or maybe just the word "jihad") having been mentioned. As a general opponent of everything that is politically correct, I felt I had to make some retort. I chose "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" because it can be applied to the situation of Islam being the darling child of cultural relativism, and though the claim is that all religions should be equally defended, noone would bother to defend e.g. Christendom**** in the same reflex-like manner. I don't know if that was obvious or not.
*
Compare with welfare-statists, who would rather tax rich people out of existence than allowing there to be an economic difference between any two persons, and its direct consequence: The common people of Soviet Russia, everyone being equally poor.**
For extra collectivist points, it should be mentioned that those untrue muslims are also acting in their own, selfish interest rather than the interest of their people, that they are power-hungry and that they are misusing common values of their culture to their own ends. Before being corrupted by these egoists (men all of them, mind you!), Jihad was a beautiful concept, filled with love and sunflowers.***
Christians, on the other hand, have to hate themselves. Except, of course, if the contrast can be the consequence of scientific rationalization of the world (so typical of the cold, unfeeling, western world): atheism.****
Or, for that matter, even Judaism, since Israel and the USA maintain such close ties, making Israel an extension of their hated (though equal) western world.
by Loopoo » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:24 pm You come across as someone really nasty
