Hewitt, Prager, Medved, and Carter: A Meeting Of The Minds On Cartoons.
I haver to admit this upfront. When I heard Hugh was going to pull of this symposium regarding the Danish cartoons and their fallout, I wasn't pleased to hear his panel. Why? Because it includes none of the bloggers involved on our side. No Michelle Malkin. No Ed Morrissey. No one who represents our side. However, I decided to listen to this with an open mind. Prager and Medved, both Jewish, understand and can relate to the slander of cartoonists regarding their beliefs. Joe Carter from Evangelical Outpost is a Christian that I'm curious to hear where he stands. We know where Hugh stands in regard to the cartoons, which is my like our stance.
They are deplorable. They are tasteless. They are disparaging. However, that is where our similarities end, as far as I know. As a matter of fact, our opinion is much like those of the Muslims that Marcie and I have spoken with. They are offended by the cartoons, but after watching the response from the Muslim street, their answer is a simple question.
"What do you expect when the reaction is as it has been?"
And now we begin ...
After a quick recap of the timeline of events, Hugh began addressing his guests. Carter feels there are no winners in this mess, and that there really should be no sides taken in this. Medved points out this sort of reaction would not normally occur, unless you include Islam into the mix. Christianity and Judaism hasn't acted this way in some time, and that the Muslims aren't justified. Prager believes there is no clarity that the Muslims have with the West. He also believes that there is a clash of cultures--the West vs. Islam--when it comes to this incident. Prager also did an overview of how this happened, which was along the lines of whether the Danes should have practiced self-censorship when it comes to how the West sees Islam.
Carter stated that it was clearly a matter of provocation, and he also believes that this incident will hurt the West in the GWOT. Medved follows up that we shouldn't be cowed into not addressing this sort of behavior--clearly the sort of behavior which is driving Islam right now. (Only because the moderates are being drowned out.) Prager doesn't believe that the cartoons weren't a good idea, but he pushes the issue that it doesn't matter what we do. The radicals will despise us for our ways. He even cites the beauty pageant held in Nigeria, and the violence that followed the radicals in their attack on that event.
As Hugh heads into break #1, I'm left with the idea that Hugh is truly on the wrong side of this debate. Prager and Medved have made solid points regarding where they believe Islam is, and why it's technically winning on this particular issue. The media isn't addressing both sides of the debate that has erupted, and it's trying to pussy-foot around the issue in it's best, vain hopes that they won't tick off the Islamicists that have taken to the streets and embraced violence as their only recourse as opposed to peaceful protest.
Carter comes back with the view that this war will take decades, and that we shouldn't insult our enemies. Medved states that the cartoons show the view against the political correctness in this war. Medved and Hugh cross swords over one particular cartoon, and Medved points out that the one referring to the virgins isn't nearly as offensive as people are stating it is. Prager shows that there is no real differential between the tepid cartoons from the Danes, and the slanderous cartoons representing Jews. He rattles off a series of instances where Islam has a very unfree society as opposed to the West. Prager corrects Hugh that these cartoons shouldn't be provocative. Medved calls for newspapers to publish the cartoons, and stand in solidarity; do not run from the Muslims. To do so would be considered a "double-standard." Carter tries to draw an analogy between what has happened, and a simple dispute where people would "stand in solidarity" with the disputor. Prager sums this up best, thus far, that if these are the ends the Muslims will go to--if they will lose their minds at the drop of a hat--then we have no hope. We can't win. Medved also points out that the jihadist propogandists have truly exploited the entire situation with their phony "cartoons."
Going into the break, Hugh presents a simple question: What should the reaction in the West be in the face of this situation?
Hugh cites the line from "Kingdom of Heaven" in regard to "Give me a war," and claims that there are many cheering on the Cartoon War. Medved says that Europe should be paying attention to this, and the reaction serves as a lesson for the world, as a whole. Hugh states that many on our side are basically telling Islam "bring it on." Carter states that the Muslims may learn what freedom is in terms of expression. Prager challenged Carter on where the condemnation in the Muslim world is over this violence. Carter really has no answer (we did cite two groups that have condemned the violence) but Medved stated that the rage doesn't equate to the Muslims that look to their religion for their "light." Carter stated that we can show them liberty, and show them it won't choke their religious beliefs. Prager claimed that he and Medved showed more respect for the Muslims than Hugh. Hugh countered with the fact that he stands for the millions of Muslims who are offended and haven't taken up the sword.
As an aside, and to support Hugh's view, as I stated above Marcie and I have spoken with Muslims over this. Hugh is correct that there are plenty of mainstream, everyday Muslims that do condemn the cartoons as offensive, but they also condemn the violence; they believe there is another way to deal wioth the cartoonists than through the use of violence.
Going into the next segment (next to last), Hugh started off with a question: What percentage of the Muslim world is considered "radicalized." Prager stated that he believes 20% is, and half of what is left is subject to it. Medved stated that it's around over 50% subject to radicalization, and cites a point in an Iraqi paper warning of an upswing in violence on the eve of a religious feast. Carter claims it's only 10%-15% is radicalized, but that the cartoons could prompt the radicalization above either Prager's or Medved's predications. Prager points out that the West does not promote radicalization. Medved states that the radicalization is being prompted by the nutters in the Middle East, like those in Iran and Syria. Prager points out that nothing the West really makes it to the Middle East. It is the minor points, like the cartoons, that are shown. It doesn't prompt radicalization; it ratchets it up when pointed to. Hugh asked a simple question: Will there be a wider conflict now? Medved claims that we are already at our ends; we are in a worldwide conflict. It is a war not between civilizations, but on civilizations.
Coming into the final segment, Hugh asks his guest what should the president say. Carter states that he should remind the world that freedom of expression is inherent. Medved believes likewise. Prager wants the president to be honest, and that he should say he is against the cartoons. Prager also said that biggest stain on Islam is that those we hear claim they are killing in the name of Mohammed, and their religion. Hugh also wanted to know at what point should those of religious nature should stand up for their beliefs. Medved believed that always happens, but that violence shouldn't be the step taken. He also stated that all of Islam shouldn't be called on the carpet over this. Prager agreed, and added that he doesn't believe that protesting is acceptable unless they protest all facets of religious slander--Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Carter agreed with Prager.
All in all, this round-table was handled quite well. I'm sure the transcript will be up on Radio Blogger before the night is over if anyone would care to peruse it. I recommend it. This was an awesome discussion between four keen minds. I have to say that I agree with Dennis Prager and Michael Medved, though I have gained an insight into Hugh Hewitt that he hadn't put up on his site; further, I believe Hugh's been given a couple things to think about.I can say that I have a couple of things to chew on after this discussion.
WE still stand on this simple point. We don't condone the cartoons. They are insulting. But, we condemn the violence that has ensued. If Islam is to show the West that they aren't like the radicals, then the radicals must be dealt with; frozen out by mainstream Islam that doesn't embrace violence, and condemned on every level should such violence occur. We don't hear nearly enough of those voices. They haven't been very vocal in the war, or the atrocities committed in Islam's name in this war. A time has come for a change. An empasse that must be engaged and crossed. If Islam embraces the radicals point-of-view, the Rubicon will have been crossed, and there will be no turning back. We don't want an all-out war with Islam, just like Islam doesn't want an all-out war with the West. Neither side will truly win in the overall struggle. There may be a "winner," but will they have accomplished in the overall scope of the world.
Let's face it: the actions taken today will paint the pathway of the future. We have our enemies, but it isn't the entire religion. It is only the most basest of their animals that strike after they chewed through their leash.
Publius II
I haver to admit this upfront. When I heard Hugh was going to pull of this symposium regarding the Danish cartoons and their fallout, I wasn't pleased to hear his panel. Why? Because it includes none of the bloggers involved on our side. No Michelle Malkin. No Ed Morrissey. No one who represents our side. However, I decided to listen to this with an open mind. Prager and Medved, both Jewish, understand and can relate to the slander of cartoonists regarding their beliefs. Joe Carter from Evangelical Outpost is a Christian that I'm curious to hear where he stands. We know where Hugh stands in regard to the cartoons, which is my like our stance.
They are deplorable. They are tasteless. They are disparaging. However, that is where our similarities end, as far as I know. As a matter of fact, our opinion is much like those of the Muslims that Marcie and I have spoken with. They are offended by the cartoons, but after watching the response from the Muslim street, their answer is a simple question.
"What do you expect when the reaction is as it has been?"
And now we begin ...
After a quick recap of the timeline of events, Hugh began addressing his guests. Carter feels there are no winners in this mess, and that there really should be no sides taken in this. Medved points out this sort of reaction would not normally occur, unless you include Islam into the mix. Christianity and Judaism hasn't acted this way in some time, and that the Muslims aren't justified. Prager believes there is no clarity that the Muslims have with the West. He also believes that there is a clash of cultures--the West vs. Islam--when it comes to this incident. Prager also did an overview of how this happened, which was along the lines of whether the Danes should have practiced self-censorship when it comes to how the West sees Islam.
Carter stated that it was clearly a matter of provocation, and he also believes that this incident will hurt the West in the GWOT. Medved follows up that we shouldn't be cowed into not addressing this sort of behavior--clearly the sort of behavior which is driving Islam right now. (Only because the moderates are being drowned out.) Prager doesn't believe that the cartoons weren't a good idea, but he pushes the issue that it doesn't matter what we do. The radicals will despise us for our ways. He even cites the beauty pageant held in Nigeria, and the violence that followed the radicals in their attack on that event.
As Hugh heads into break #1, I'm left with the idea that Hugh is truly on the wrong side of this debate. Prager and Medved have made solid points regarding where they believe Islam is, and why it's technically winning on this particular issue. The media isn't addressing both sides of the debate that has erupted, and it's trying to pussy-foot around the issue in it's best, vain hopes that they won't tick off the Islamicists that have taken to the streets and embraced violence as their only recourse as opposed to peaceful protest.
Carter comes back with the view that this war will take decades, and that we shouldn't insult our enemies. Medved states that the cartoons show the view against the political correctness in this war. Medved and Hugh cross swords over one particular cartoon, and Medved points out that the one referring to the virgins isn't nearly as offensive as people are stating it is. Prager shows that there is no real differential between the tepid cartoons from the Danes, and the slanderous cartoons representing Jews. He rattles off a series of instances where Islam has a very unfree society as opposed to the West. Prager corrects Hugh that these cartoons shouldn't be provocative. Medved calls for newspapers to publish the cartoons, and stand in solidarity; do not run from the Muslims. To do so would be considered a "double-standard." Carter tries to draw an analogy between what has happened, and a simple dispute where people would "stand in solidarity" with the disputor. Prager sums this up best, thus far, that if these are the ends the Muslims will go to--if they will lose their minds at the drop of a hat--then we have no hope. We can't win. Medved also points out that the jihadist propogandists have truly exploited the entire situation with their phony "cartoons."
Going into the break, Hugh presents a simple question: What should the reaction in the West be in the face of this situation?
Hugh cites the line from "Kingdom of Heaven" in regard to "Give me a war," and claims that there are many cheering on the Cartoon War. Medved says that Europe should be paying attention to this, and the reaction serves as a lesson for the world, as a whole. Hugh states that many on our side are basically telling Islam "bring it on." Carter states that the Muslims may learn what freedom is in terms of expression. Prager challenged Carter on where the condemnation in the Muslim world is over this violence. Carter really has no answer (we did cite two groups that have condemned the violence) but Medved stated that the rage doesn't equate to the Muslims that look to their religion for their "light." Carter stated that we can show them liberty, and show them it won't choke their religious beliefs. Prager claimed that he and Medved showed more respect for the Muslims than Hugh. Hugh countered with the fact that he stands for the millions of Muslims who are offended and haven't taken up the sword.
As an aside, and to support Hugh's view, as I stated above Marcie and I have spoken with Muslims over this. Hugh is correct that there are plenty of mainstream, everyday Muslims that do condemn the cartoons as offensive, but they also condemn the violence; they believe there is another way to deal wioth the cartoonists than through the use of violence.
Going into the next segment (next to last), Hugh started off with a question: What percentage of the Muslim world is considered "radicalized." Prager stated that he believes 20% is, and half of what is left is subject to it. Medved stated that it's around over 50% subject to radicalization, and cites a point in an Iraqi paper warning of an upswing in violence on the eve of a religious feast. Carter claims it's only 10%-15% is radicalized, but that the cartoons could prompt the radicalization above either Prager's or Medved's predications. Prager points out that the West does not promote radicalization. Medved states that the radicalization is being prompted by the nutters in the Middle East, like those in Iran and Syria. Prager points out that nothing the West really makes it to the Middle East. It is the minor points, like the cartoons, that are shown. It doesn't prompt radicalization; it ratchets it up when pointed to. Hugh asked a simple question: Will there be a wider conflict now? Medved claims that we are already at our ends; we are in a worldwide conflict. It is a war not between civilizations, but on civilizations.
Coming into the final segment, Hugh asks his guest what should the president say. Carter states that he should remind the world that freedom of expression is inherent. Medved believes likewise. Prager wants the president to be honest, and that he should say he is against the cartoons. Prager also said that biggest stain on Islam is that those we hear claim they are killing in the name of Mohammed, and their religion. Hugh also wanted to know at what point should those of religious nature should stand up for their beliefs. Medved believed that always happens, but that violence shouldn't be the step taken. He also stated that all of Islam shouldn't be called on the carpet over this. Prager agreed, and added that he doesn't believe that protesting is acceptable unless they protest all facets of religious slander--Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Carter agreed with Prager.
All in all, this round-table was handled quite well. I'm sure the transcript will be up on Radio Blogger before the night is over if anyone would care to peruse it. I recommend it. This was an awesome discussion between four keen minds. I have to say that I agree with Dennis Prager and Michael Medved, though I have gained an insight into Hugh Hewitt that he hadn't put up on his site; further, I believe Hugh's been given a couple things to think about.I can say that I have a couple of things to chew on after this discussion.
WE still stand on this simple point. We don't condone the cartoons. They are insulting. But, we condemn the violence that has ensued. If Islam is to show the West that they aren't like the radicals, then the radicals must be dealt with; frozen out by mainstream Islam that doesn't embrace violence, and condemned on every level should such violence occur. We don't hear nearly enough of those voices. They haven't been very vocal in the war, or the atrocities committed in Islam's name in this war. A time has come for a change. An empasse that must be engaged and crossed. If Islam embraces the radicals point-of-view, the Rubicon will have been crossed, and there will be no turning back. We don't want an all-out war with Islam, just like Islam doesn't want an all-out war with the West. Neither side will truly win in the overall struggle. There may be a "winner," but will they have accomplished in the overall scope of the world.
Let's face it: the actions taken today will paint the pathway of the future. We have our enemies, but it isn't the entire religion. It is only the most basest of their animals that strike after they chewed through their leash.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 7:07 PM
1 Comments:
Hannity had an interesting lady on his show this afternoon. She's Muslim and says that radicalized Islam is mainstream. What a shame.
Post a Comment
<< Home