On Sep 26, 2004, at 5:18 AM, Murray Ramone wrote:
I'll try and explain again
my line of reasoning was he was trying to shock but yet taking great care
that he couldnt be prosecuted by the Christian based english laws at the
time (I think they've since been changed ?) - The Iranian clerics couldnt
bring a court case against him over here so they had a fatwah
A much better scenario for everyone would have been for Rushdie to bring
out his book as originally written and if he had been prosecuted for it
then challenge the stupid law
Well, we can't all be Lenny Bruce, and if I remember correctly, Rushdie
was a known author, but not a greatly known author. It would take a great
amount of money, never mind time and energy to fight the government on an
issue that he could very well lose. I don't blame him for not wanting to
be a test case, if indeed what you're saying is true and he personally
changed his book to avoid that. I find it more likely that his editor
asked him to change some things so the publishing house wouldn't be
liable, but I don' t know the whole story. Do you have some references I
could read more about it?
"Would it have been better if he had accidentally offended the
crazies?" - I think calling Muslims "the crazies" is pretty offensive in
itself, but yes it would have been better if it was accidental, then he
could have apologised - the thing was, it wasnt accidental
No, Muslims aren't the crazies--that's not what I meant. The crazies are
the few religious nuts in our world that would consider murdering somebody
just because they wrote something they disagree with. I'm
non-denominational in my despising of this behavior. If ye be Muslim,
Christian, Jew, Buddhist (never hear of them issuing death sentences,
though, anybody?), Republican or atheist and you'd be willing to kill
somebody because they defamed your beliefs, then I hearby proclaim you a
crazy.
If you are going to offend someone you have to be willing to take the
consequences of your actions - I found it amusing that the consequences
of his actions were far greater than the ones he took steps to avoid -
this isnt blaming the victim, he was the initial aggressor
Frankly, I find the right (and write) to offend and be offended
inalienable.
But because the response of Khomeini was so radically disproportionate to
the so-called crime, that makes Rushdie a victim. Khomeini could have
called for all muslims to ban, protest, or burn the book, but he didn't.
He put a price on Rushdie's head. That, in any civilized society, is not a
viable prerogative, and as soon as he made such a (and it's worth saying
again) radically disproportionate response to the offense, that makes
Rusdie the victim, and you're still blaming him.
apologies to everyone who doesnt like the political stuff - its got OT in
the subject so if you're not interested dont read it
My apologies too--although, hey man--it's LITERATURE we're arguing over!
Think they get that on the Limp Bizkit list (oh god, IS there a Limp
Bizkit list?)?
Cheers,
Murray
--------------
To post: Mail tv@obbard.com
To unsubscribe: Mail majordomo@obbard.com with message "unsubscribe tv"
martin@rosacordis.com
http://rosacordis.com
--------------
To post: Mail tv@obbard.com
To unsubscribe: Mail majordomo@obbard.com with message "unsubscribe tv"