So, the JP drawings was a mistake – a BIG one. Now the world has changed and we have to face the fact that the fundamentalist part of the Islamic world has gone berserk. The question is how to move on.Is it a funny little analogy to view Denmark as the Shire and the Danes as the hobbits with a ring bearer among them, while the great forces of power are in conflict over the heads of the hobbits? Maybe it isn't. I wouldn't have been embarrassed about the Shire, but I have indeed been about Denmark and my contrymen who obviously do not understand how to live with people being different from themselves. Stupid and wrong as the analogy might be, I can't help finding it somewhat interesting. Let's leave it there.
Now, since losing great parts of southern Danish land to Germany around 1870, since our neutrality during the Great War, since Scavenius' politics of cooperation throughout the Second World War, and since the joining of the European Community [EF] in 1972 all the way to the election of the Maastricht treaty in 1992, Denmark has been politically neutral. In 1992, our small country cracked into two parts. Those who found the European Union to be enhancing Danish sovereignty and those who found soverighnty to be decreased. I voted "no", but later I have convinced myself that it was wrong, despite present farm subsidies and some invironmental issues. Since then, Danes has had to confront themselves with problems outside its own small duck pond: the inclusion of the Balkans and other East European countries, and the issue of Turkish membership, e.g.
We cannot look away. And now this conflict of Islam versus democracy, as it has been higlighted somewhere. I don't know much about Islam – heck I don't know much about Christianity either. But this conflict has made it crystal clear that we simply have to take a stance. Despite the deplorable mistake by the JP, now, I guess we have to figure out what is the real issue here. Is the Western world, which is more or less secularized, ready to meet Islamic ideas of religion-based law-making? Is Fogh Rasmussen's concept of peaceful dialogue at all sensible? Is he willing to give in and change opinion and meet with (moderate) representatives of the Islam, if they are also ready to change their opinion? I doubt it. But I hope so. There will be no dialogue. Instead, I agree with Niels Højlund that we have to learn to live meekly and forbearing together. Tolerant and respectful even.