Walk The Line

2006-09-18 - 10:38 a.m.

Interesting weekend, here.

So the Pope talks about a book he was reading. There was a reference to a conversation that took place between "emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam". The quote - which was made around the end of the 14th century - calls Islam "evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Now remember, folks - these were NOT the words of the Pope. These were the words of an emperor. They were said over 600 years ago. The emperor evidently thought that Islam was a violent religion. And what brought him to that conclusion? The commands of Mohammed the prophet.

So. How do Muslims react to the Pope's revelation that an emperor 600 years ago thought that Islam was a violent religion? Muslims murder a nun in Somalia, who forgave her killers as she lay dying. Muslims burn churches in Gaza. Muslims march and demonstrate in ways that remind us of the violence that spread after that Danish cartoon situation.

If Islam is a religion of peace, they aren't showing it. I mean, doesn't it make sense that, if Islam is not a violent religion, and they don't want the world to think they are a violent religion...doesn't it make sense that they wouldn't react violently?

And where's the similar marches from "peaceful" Muslims, protesting the violence that the radical Muslims are doing?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

===

A distributor has picked up the movie about the fictional assassination of President Bush, thereby guaranteeing that it will be shown in the US.

Personally, I think it's disgusting...but NOT because it's about the assassination of Bush. It's because it's about an assassination of the PRESIDENT IN OFFICE. It is my belief - and remember, I'm old and out of touch - that this would never have happened twenty years ago. You don't have to like the President in office, but there is still a certain amount of respect due to the office. Hey, there were a LOT of things Bill Clinton did that I didn't like. But I never wished the man dead.

But of course, this kind of freedom is something that was fought for. This is part of the price that you pay. You take the sublime with the disgusting.

(BTW, what would have happened if this kind of movie had been about the assassination of Clinton while he was in office? The Democrats would be screaming. It would be front-page news. Where's the outcry from the Republicans right now? Exactly.)

===

And, in the world of capitalism, "The Price Is Right" started it's 35th season today. Talk about job security.

I always wanted to go on that show, get onstage, and ask if the models came with the car or (better) a hot tub. I would go on to say that, if they did, it would raise the price by about two million dollars each.

I think Bob would like that.

===

Well, the real world is pounding on my door, so that's all for today.

Be seeing you.

Smed - 2006-09-18 13:42:33 - http://smedindy.diaryland.com
I think you have it wrong. There have been movies made about assassinations and attempted assassinations of presidents well in the past. The political thriller has always been part of the cinema landscape. Don't paint us (the left) with a broad brush then complain about the right being painted with the same brush. Same goes with the Muslims. I don't see a lot of counter protests when Falwell says idiotic things about other religions, but I know if there was one that was organized I'd be there.

===

Brin - 2006-09-18 13:49:59 -
Dave's point was that it's a sign of disrespect to portray a sitting president in office as the victim of a fictitious assassination. And fwiw, *I* happen to think it's the height of stupidity and bad taste to do this in light of world events since the new century began.

===

Dave - 2006-09-18 13:51:15 -
Yes indeed, such movies have existed. And I agree about the political thriller. BUT...a movie about an assassination of the current SITTING President? Re Islam: if there are Muslims who are upset about the violence, why aren't THEY stepping up?

===

Smed - 2006-09-18 14:44:38 - http://smedindy.diaryland.com
For one thing, the US is remarkably peaceful compared to many other countries and areas. There have been riots and violence for years and years and years over the most insignificant trifles, such as opera and art. Also, it's not disrepspect, it's art as well. Change the name of the president and the idea is still the same - assassination of the president in office.

===

Dave - 2006-09-18 15:24:04 -
But they DO change the name. AFAIK, there has never been a movie about a presidential assassination that 1) uses the name of the sitting President, and 2) deliberately uses footage of THAT President to make it look real.

===

tou-mou - 2006-09-18 16:02:01 - http://tou-mou.diaryland.com
I think he's right on both counts. Nothin' like proving you're peaceful by raping, pillaging and murdering, eh? Not that the Christians have a much better history with the whole conversion-by-the-sword bit, but at least most of them have knocked that crap off in the last century or so. And while I'm an avowed Bush-hater, I don't think killing him off in the movie is appropriate. If they want to explore themes of assassination, why not do so with a fictional prez, even one who's barely fictionalized and clearly represents Bush?

===

Previous - Next - Leave A Note - Random