It all started when a Danish newspaper published cartoons of Mohammed. It continued with demands by the Muslim population in both Denmark and abroad for a public apology. Any decipication of Mohammed is forbidden by Islam, but that was just part of the issue. Via those cartoons the newspaper passed judgement on Islam in general, hinting at it being violent and fanatical. The reactions of the Muslim world did little, sadly, to allevate that image. Protests would have been a respectable reaction, but what ensued was far more. Protests in Afganistan, the Palestinian Authority and most of the Arab nations were violent. From cross-burnings to setting one Danish embassy ablaze, as it were. Iran, and quite a few Arab nations have declared a boycott on Danish products until the nation apologises. The newspaper did, the nation did not. Denmark has freedom of speech, the PM said, and the nation was not responsible for what this or that paper said. Both Indonesia and Jordan had protests, but those were much calmer. Both nations had newspapers that published the cartoons, if only as an illustration of what the whole thing was about. In Jordan it was a small newspaper, and it took only a few angry letters to get the editor fired. He was free to publish whatever he liked, mind, just that he wasn't free to publish what the public didn't approve of, thus losing clients. Indonesia had little reaction to the publication, as the editor in that particular paper did everything he could to placate the public along with publishing the cartoons. All he wanted, he said, was to show the public what the issue was about. Now, papers in Spain, Germany, and France publish the cartoons, in support of the Danish paper and of their freedom of speech. The editor of the French paper is fired in the following day. More anger ensues. A Muslim group in Denmark, which some say is a radical one, publishes several Holocaust-themed cartoons in their website, saying that this was in response to the cartoons of Mohammed. They cited aforementioned freedom of speech, and said the Europe, too, had its holy cows, even if they werent religious ones. One showed Anne Frank in bed with Hitler, another questioned the occurance of the Holocaust altogether. At this point, yours truly wonders how it is that Jews got into it all. Other ways, I presume, were available to 'counter' the cartoons of the Danish newspaper. Ah, t'is a comedy of reruns... An Iranian newspaper started a competition of Holocaust-themed cartoons. The Ayatolla Chomeini said, in a speech to the Iranian Air Force, that the cartoons of Mohammed have their true origin in Israel, as reprisal for Hamas' victory in the elections in the Palestinian Authority. Riiiiight. Several leaders of Islam call for calm, but I fear that they are both too few, and too late. So, anything to add to my summary? Or perhaps opinions, predictions of things to come, musings regarding Freedom of Speech?
I can't help thinking through all of this, don't the poor guys have more important wars to fight than that against a Danish newspaper owned by Jehova's Witnesses? I mean I guess we can all agree that Jehova's are as crazy bastards as everyone else on this planet since we all can't get along, but if I was a young man in Palestine, I can't see how the small hatred for Jyllandsposten could overcloud the enormous hatred I'd have for Israel. And I can't believe Iran is still making the obvious mistake of thinking they're attacking Israel, a country, by not acknowledging the holocaust, a genocide of mostly polish (a completely different country!) jews. Someone help me out here please! I think it's a bit unlucky that it wasn't muslims that drew the cartoons. They're not that funny, but hell, why make such a fuzz about it. Christianity's got Monty Python's Life of Brian, Jews' got almost every movie of Mel Brooks, and I don't think there ever was such a violent protest against any of those as in the case of Jyllandsposten. Somehow I can understand the anger though. The dog that never gets a treat and always get beaten will in the end try to bite every hand that comes near it.
Oh, and this quote brought a smile to my face: (did I hear someone say Dibbler?) [quote:18a29e837a="Metro Stockholm, 2006-02-08"]I'm not taking any political standpoint. Everything is business. - Ahmed Abu Dayya who ordered 100 danish and norwegian flags to his shop in Gaza when he heard the caricatures were republished in newspapers around Europe. [/quote:18a29e837a] Edited to add quote tag. Edit again because I missed out the oh so important word "flags" in the quote.
I've seem spme of the cartoons. Frankly said, some were dumb, and I understand the protest as such. As far as the reports I red on the events go, though, thery were published by a newspaper that passed judgement on Islam as a whole before, in commentarys and news selection. It was quite a while ago, though, and the protests rekindled, and took their current form, when a delegation of aforementioned Muslim group took the caricatures with them to Indonesia, and added pictures they say they got in hatemails - pictures no newspaper would have printed, showing Muslims sodomizing pigs and suchlike. Those pictures and the caricatures actually printed got confused at least for a while, in the gossip running through the cities, and I guess at some point public outrage gained disastrous momentum. So far, seven people have died in the worldwide riots caused by it. How the Jews got into it? My suspicion: the old stereotype that "the Western media as a whole is controlled by the Jews". Or throwing all unbelieving into one kettle, and always likely to pick your favourite foe first.
[quote:ba1d0d5e59="KaptenKaries"]And I can't believe Iran is still making the obvious mistake of thinking they're attacking Israel, a country, by not acknowledging the holocaust, a genocide of mostly polish (a completely different country!) jews. Someone help me out here please! Christianity's got Monty Python's Life of Brian, Jews' got almost every movie of Mel Brooks, and I don't think there ever was such a violent protest against any of those as in the case of Jyllandsposten. [/quote:ba1d0d5e59] The closest equivalent I can think of were the protests against "Last Temptation of Christ". Showing Jesus as a man both in love and in lust REEEALLY pissed a lot of people off (damn good movie, btw!) Still, it seems to me that the stupid little cartoon was a match thrown into a sea of gasoline (with someone who benefitted from it all, standing on the side and assiduously fanning the flames . Once again - it's the people who incite a riot that are truly evil, as opposed to the rioters themselves!) As for Jews being in the root of the trouble...hah! We've been blamed for EVERYTHING under the sun, from communism to capitalism to anarchism to ... I don't know, solar eclipses!!! - why not this, too? "If there's no water in your faucet, then the Jews have drank it all!" Vladimir Vysotskiy, tongue-in-cheek.
[quote:5f1052037d="mowgli"] As for Jews being in the root of the trouble...hah! We've been blamed for EVERYTHING under the sun, from communism to capitalism to anarchism to ... I don't know, solar eclipses!!! - why not this, too?[/quote:5f1052037d] Hmm I've been writing and rewriting and trying out different approaches here with a reply that explains my thoughts and thinkings with all this, but I cannot really come up with something that is not easily mistaken. I guess it all boils down to this: I think it's one of the biggest tragedies of our civilisation's history that all of the world's three most popular religions had to choose the same bloody town to be their holiest of places. Of course people make up all kinds of lies about the other two if they've been fighting for the same little piece of land for over a thousand years. Now, ideally, Christians could've chosen Frankfurt, Jews could have picked Athens and Muslims could have gone for Tunis, that way, the really agressive ones could've met up somewhere in the middle (let's say Sicily) and beaten up each other, stated "Screw you guys I'm going home" and then perhaps the thing would have calmed down after a while. Edit: Oooops! [b:5f1052037d]Big[/b:5f1052037d] mistake there. Wrote "Arabs", meant "Muslims". Not the same thing. Sorry!
It's not about Islam or Judaism or Christianity. It's about fundamentalism. There's something wrong with anyone who thinks that death is an appropriate punishment for someone who says something offensive.
And are bad at geography, they tried to burn down both Swedish and Norwegian embassys aswell. And burned the Swiss flag, so what? Red and white - same same.
[quote:a794325f2b="Marcia"]It's not about Islam or Judaism or Christianity. It's about fundamentalism. There's something wrong with anyone who thinks that death is an appropriate punishment for someone who says something offensive.[/quote:a794325f2b] Oh, I think there's something wrong with anyone who thinks that death is an appropriate punishment. Period. But I agree, this phenomenon is not solely found with religious motifs. It seems to appear in all kinds of hierarchal structures, when people are strongly convinced they've got it right and others got it fatally wrong, and people fail to question authority.
well in europe we have freedom of the press and dremcracy and freedom of speech and there is a fine line btween freedom of the press/freedom of speech and insulting some ones relgion and the danish paper over steped this line
Have the Danish papers apologised for publishing the cartoons? If not, It's an example of freedom of Speech, but not responsibility of speech. It's not exactly a piece of flawless journalism, or anything, a cheap unfunny cartoon that insults the role model for an intire nation. Your free to say what you want, but you have to deal with the conquences. You can't go around saying all muslims are terrorists and not expect to offend people. However, dressing up as terrorists and making signs threating to bomb people is the most insanely stupid way to respond. What I found strange is most of the anger (at I seen) was aimed at Europe. We all of europe have been cast in the same net.
The reason that a lot of the other countries in Europe have been attacked is a lot of papers have stood up in protection of freedom of speech and also published the cartoons also. Now I think the newspaper(s) should issue an apology, because no matter their intentions, they have insulted a lot of Muslims. The Muslims in turn should be merely expressing dismay at the pictures, not threatening to kill the people who have published these pictures. I also recognise that it is not the majority of Muslims who are announcing the intention to slaughter these 'champions of free speech', just a very vocal minority... whose actions are louder than their words at the moment. It's sadly ironic that they are living up to the very stereotype that the cartoon they dislike is portraying. It is also unreasonable to be demanding aplogies from the respective governments of the papers, as they have no control of the content of the papers. Out of the major parties involved, the Danish government seem to be the only ones who have handled this properly.
Do you know what the completely bonkers thing about this story is? All the Qu'aran does is forbid idololatry. It doesn't say anywhere "draw Muhammad and Jibra'il will chop you to bits." Here is the wiki article on the whole shebang. Let's take the cartoons one at a time. [quote:e407614845][b:e407614845]The Islamic star and crescent partially symbolizing the face of Muhammad; his right eye is the star, the crescent surrounds his beard and face.[/b:e407614845][/quote:e407614845] So what? [quote:e407614845][b:e407614845]Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, with a lit fuse and the Islamic creed written on the bomb. This drawing is considered the most controversial of the twelve.[/b:e407614845][/quote:e407614845] And the thunderously moronic walls in the muslim creed did everything in their power that the illustrator was right. [quote:e407614845][b:e407614845]Muhammad standing in a gentle pose with a halo in the shape of a crescent moon. The middle part of the crescent is obscured, revealing only the edges which resemble horns.[/b:e407614845][/quote:e407614845] So he has a crescent for a halo. So what. [quote:e407614845][b:e407614845]An abstract drawing of crescent moons and Stars of David, and a poem on oppression of women "Profet! Med kuk og knald i låget som holder kvinder under åget!". In English the poem could be read as: "Prophet, you crazy bloke! Keeping women under yoke"[/quote:e407614845][/b:e407614845] That's badgering all prophets who initiated or perpetuated the oppression of women. Oh dear, what if the women see this and want to be *gulp* [i:e407614845]equals[/i:e407614845]? and wear whatever they like? and get high places in office? Not like Haditza, the Prohpet's first wife who was...er...the owner of a successful busines...er...moving on... :roll: [quote:e407614845][b:e407614845]Muhammad as a simple wanderer, in the desert, at sunset. There is a donkey in the background.[/quote:e407614845][/b:e407614845] Oh I see. There are no donkeys in the desert, only camels. [quote:e407614845][b:e407614845]A nervous caricaturist, shakily drawing Muhammad while looking over his shoulder.[/quote:e407614845][/b:e407614845] Can you blame him? [quote:e407614845][b:e407614845]Two angry Muslims charge forward with sabres and bombs, while Muhammad addresses them with: "Rolig, venner, når alt kommer til alt er det jo bare en tegning lavet af en vantro sønderjyde" (loosely, "Relax guys, it's just a drawing made by some infidel South Jutlander". South Jutland as reference would, for a Dane, connote the feeling of something like the middle of nowhere).[/quote:e407614845][/b:e407614845] Like anyone ever listens to the founder of a religion. Look where "Love thy neighbour as thyself" has gotten the christian creed throughout the ages. [quote:e407614845][b:e407614845]An Arab-looking boy in front of a blackboard, pointing to the Farsi chalkings, which translate into "The editorial team of Jyllands-Posten is a bunch of reactionary provocateurs". The boy is labelled "Mohammed, Valby school, 7.A", implying that this is a second-generation immigrant to Denmark rather than the founder of Islam. On his shirt is written "Fremtiden" (the future).[/quote:e407614845][/b:e407614845] Unless the qu'aran says that Mohammad has reincarnated as a danish schoolboy, I suspect that the riots weren't about this one. [quote:e407614845][b:e407614845]Another drawing shows Muhammad prepared for battle, with a short sabre in one hand and a black bar censoring his eyes. He is flanked by two women in niqaabs, having only their wide open eyes visible.[/quote:e407614845][/b:e407614845] Yes. Because the eyes are the windows of the soul and fanaticism corrupts the souls. [quote:e407614845][b:e407614845]Muhammad standing on a cloud, greeting dead suicide bombers with "Stop Stop vi er løbet tør for Jomfruer!" ("Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins!"), an allusion to the promised reward to martyrs.[/quote:e407614845][/b:e407614845] I understand how this cartoon would be a huge blow to the recruiting efforts of extremist groups. :roll: [quote:e407614845][b:e407614845]Another shows journalist Kåre Bluitgen, wearing a turban with the proverbial orange dropping into it, with the inscription "Publicity stunt". In his hand is a child's stick drawing of Muhammad. The proverb "an orange in the turban" is a Danish expression meaning "a stroke of luck": here, the added publicity for the book.[/quote:e407614845][/b:e407614845] I think this speaks for itself [quote:e407614845][b:e407614845]A police line-up of seven people wearing turbans, with the witness saying: "Hm... jeg kan ikke lige genkende ham" ("Hm... I can't really recognise him"). Not all people in the line-up are immediately identifiable. They are: (1) A generic Hippie, (2) politician Pia Kjærsgaard, (3) possibly Jesus, (4) possibly Buddha, (5) possibly Muhammad, (6) possibly Moses, and (7) journalist Kåre Bluitgen, carrying a sign saying: "Kåres PR, ring og få et tilbud" ("Kåre's public relations, call and get an offer").[/quote:e407614845][/b:e407614845] This is the most obscure of all. I read it as a declaration that the citizen of the western countries doesn't recognise himself in any of the major religions or ideologies. Does that mean loss of soul and spirituality? A chance to find something new, something more quintessential? The Syrian cartoonist Ali Farzat said that Mohammad wouldn't be angry or insulted by these cartoons, he would just smile. The Jordanian editor who got fired said that the cartoon issue is silly and that we should move on. But there is so much more to that. Hold on to your hats.
One of the reasons posited for the intencity of the protests is that it is the straw that broke the camels back on the negative, islam bashing media that muslims have gotten since 9/11 (possibly prior)... Being called fundametalist, terrorsits and uncivilised for years has got to get you pretty fired up and then this comes along. I beleive in freedom of the press but the press also has the freedom to take responsibility for what they wrought too. They just did a survey of Australian school kids and 90% thought all muslims were terrorists because thats all they hear in the media... Kind of disturbing that.
Taken from this site [quote:49f8c9d237] Muslim Cartoon Controversy: What the Media Isn't Telling You by Soj Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:01:49 AM PDT I had a friend over today who lives out of town and we switched on the traditional news media television and saw what most of you have probably seen - angry rioters protesting, burning flags and attacking various Danish embassies around the world. Despite the spectaculor footage and a bevy of experts "weighing in" on the issue, I did not one single mention of what's actually going on. And so therefore, by my duty as a citizen journalist, I will now share it with all of you. The issue has been framed by the traditional media as "Free Expression/Speech" in contrast with "Sensitivity to Religion". Do newspapers in democratic societies have the right to publish offensive images? Well that's something definitely worth debating, but it's overlooking an important step. 12 cartoons were published in the Danish newspaper Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, which you can see here. Some were very bland, others seem to be unquestionably offensive. Yet these cartons were published on September 30, 2005. What the traditional media has failed to explain is why the protests are occuring now. * Soj's diary :: :: * But before we explain that, it's time to address a few other issues. The first issue is whether or not it is inflammatory or offensive to Islam to depict the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) at all. Traditionally, the answer is the Qur'an (the Muslim equivalent to the Christian Bible) does not forbid it, it only forbids "idolatry", which would imply worshipping a statue or other representation of Mohammed (PBUH). The Hadith, which has no equivalent in Christianity but is equivalent to Judaism's Talmud, and is somewhat of a secondary literary source of the Muslim faith, prohibits any pictures or drawings of sacred figures, including Mohammed (PBUH). That being said, in practical terms, it occurs quite regularly. There are images similar to Orthodox Christian ikons that are commonplace in Shi'ite communities, especially in Iran. There are also Muslim works of art depicting Mohammed (PBUH) in Central Asia, and neither these nor those in Iran are considered inflammatory and neither are they censored. There are a number of depictions of Mohammed (PBUH), some in very unflattering situations, in Christian churches in Europe, especially Italy. The famous book/poem "Inferno" by Dante makes a very unflattering reference to Mohammed (PBUH) and there are several pieces of artwork depicting Dante's descriptions. There have been several derogatory or potentially inflammatory usages of Mohammed (PBUH) in American entertainment vehicles, perhaps the most famous being South Park. And last but not least, there is an actual sculpture of Mohammed (PBUH) on the Supreme Court building in Washington, DC. The point I'm trying to make here is that Mohammed (PBUH) has been depicted, painted or made appearances in animated cartoons on many, many occasions and yet there's been no rioting, storming of embassies and CNN coverage. The question becomes, not why were the Danish cartoons offensive or inappropriate, but why is there such a strong reaction now? Denmark has a long history of multi-cultural tolerance, including their famous solidarity stand with Jewish citizens during World War 2. The newspaper Jyllands-Posten itself was surprised by the strong reaction to their cartoons and even apologized publically for any offense they may have caused. And for 2 months, there was hardly a peep from any Muslim group outside a small protest in Denmark itself and somewhat larger protests in Pakistan. So what triggered this? Well it takes a blog to explain it. What CNN and the other traditional media failed to tell you is that the thousand gallons of fuel added to the fire of outrage came from none other than our old pals Saudi Arabia. While it was a minor side story in the western press, the most important of Muslim religious festivals recently took place in Saudi Arabia - called the Hajj. Every able-bodied Muslim is obligated to make a pilgrimage once in their lifetime to Mecca, which is in modern-day Saudi Arabia. This pilgrimage can be done at any time of the year but most pilgrims arrive during the Muslim month known as Dhu al-Hijjah, which follows a lunar calendar that does not exactly match the western Gregorian calendar. The most recent Hajj occurred during the first half of January 2006, precisely when the "outrage" over the Danish cartoons began in earnest. There were a number of stampedes, called "tragedies" in the press, during the Hajj which killed several hundred pilgrims. I say "tragedies" in quotation marks because there have been similar "tragedies" during the Hajj and each time, the Saudi government promises to improve security and facilitation of movement to avoid these. Over 251 pilgrims were killed during the 2004 Hajj alone in the same area as the one that killed 350 pilgrims in 2006. These were not unavoidable accidents, they were the results of poor planning by the Saudi government. And while the deaths of these pilgrims was a mere blip on the traditional western media's radar, it was a huge story in the Muslim world. Most of the pilgrims who were killed came from poorer countries such as Pakistan, where the Hajj is a very big story. Even the most objective news stories were suddenly casting Saudi Arabia in a very bad light and they decided to do something about it. Their plan was to go on a major offensive against the Danish cartoons. The 350 pilgrims were killed on January 12 and soon after, Saudi newspapers (which are all controlled by the state) began running up to 4 articles per day condemning the Danish cartoons. The Saudi government asked for a formal apology from Denmark. When that was not forthcoming, they began calling for world-wide protests. After two weeks of this, the Libyans decided to close their embassy in Denmark. Then there was an attack on the Danish embassy in Indonesia. And that was followed by attacks on the embassies in Syria and then Lebanon. Many European papers, including the right-wing German Springer media group, fanned the flames by reprinting the cartoons. And now you have the situation we are in today, with lots of video footage of angry crowds and the storming of embassies and calls for boycotts of Danish and European products. Saudi Arabia's influence on the Sunni Muslim world is incalculable. The sermons from high-ranking Muslim clerics are read and studied by Muslims around the world, who in turn give sermons to their local congregations. While the Saudis do not have direct control of the world's Sunni flocks, their influence is similar somewhat to the Pope's pronouncements and the sermons that Catholic priests give to their flocks the following Sundays. Saudi Arabia also finances a number of Muslim "study centers", where all the literature and material is provided by the Saudi government, filled with hatred for Jews and other extremely racist material. For them to promote an idea based on religion, including "outrage" at some cartoons published months earlier, is standard operating procedure. Of course there is more than Saudi Arabia's hand at play here. The issue has metamorphed from religious outrage at a dozen cartoons to a clash of those who feel they are oppressed and downtrodded by the Christian world and those they consider their oppressors. That's why there was anti-Christian rioting in Lebanon, where the two religious groups have a long and tumultous co-existance. As I sat there watching CNN (International) with my friend today, I could not help but note the number of Saudi flags that the various rioters were waving in Lebanon and Syria. Coincidence? I think not. Look for yourself - they are green with a large expanse of Arabic writing in white above a sword. Lebanon (Reuters) This is cross-posted from Flogging the Simian Peace Tags: cartoons, riots, saudi arabia (all tags) [/quote:49f8c9d237]
What makes the fundamentalists so angry against the freedom of speech is that it transcends religion and ideology. And a public already angry becasue it feels victimised and targeted after 9/11 is too happy to join in a -ha-crusade against the infidels who want to corrupt their way of life. The same laws that protect the newspaper's right to publish the cartoons protects said muslims' right to publish what [i:f5a302af66]they[/i:f5a302af66] want. If something is sycophantic, there are also laws that protect the injured party. Thing is, the only injured party is poor Mohammad. And he was injured by his own followers. [img:f5a302af66]http://www.eurotrib.com/files/3/aim__par_des_cons.jpg[/img:f5a302af66] Tell us about it. Edit: It translates "It's hard being loved by wankers" Edit 2: Fixed a broken link
Oh, dear, Agvi - is Mal's house now going to be burned down because this appears on the site? I am an agnostic - I just don't know if there is a god (or gods) - but my personal opinion, which may be offensive to some, is that [i:634028e0e6]all[/i:634028e0e6] the organized religions are rubbish - but I do not go around trying to persuade other people to stop believing and live according to my own non-religious moral standard - so why should religions try to impose themselves on other people? OK, if Islam forbids making images of Mohammed - fine - but that restriction should only apply to Muslims - why should they think that they can force everybody to adhere to their restrictions? Freedom of speech has to be just that - if you have to think of [i:634028e0e6]everybody[/i:634028e0e6] you might offend, nothing would ever get said, because there is always someone willing to take offence at something, and you never know who they are or what their pet peeve might be. Freedom of speech must be an absolute or it is nothing.
Oh, they had a right to publish the cartoons, however, after the reaction they got, they should have published an apology for any offense that they caused, even if they did not intend to or realise that it would offend. The newspaper should have been big enough to say "We printed this because we saw it as a harmless joke. It was not meant to be a serious portrayal of any of the characters depicted, but we apologise for any offense we have caused." or words along those lines. The fact that they haven't issued an apology isn't, of course, a justification for the deaths and other damage caused by the reaction of certain members of the Islamic community.
I kind of aggree with you Pixel, I don't see why they are trying to apply the principles of Muslims to people who aren't... It's as if Jews and Muslims went around burning down every place that serves pork-based of non-Kosher/Hallal products and shooting everyone who eats the stuff, that would be ridiculous, so why is this any different ? The problem with "organized religions" is that people end up believing more in the traditions than in the actual belief itsself, I consider myself a christian, I was brought up in the anglican church (not in A church, we did live in a house ) but the actual traditions I always saw as accessories around the actual belief in God or whatever name you want to put on him/her/it... but when people go as far as killing or injuring because you're not wearing the right thing, or because you have a different tradition, even within the same "religion", I think the god of human stupidity just took over...
The Danish newspaper has apologised for any offense caused, though they still stand on their right to be free to print what they want to. from the BBC [quote:290a1b2c35]While most Danish Muslims are satisfied by the apology already issued by Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that first published the cartoons, half of Danes still think that the paper could do more to appease the Arab world. Editor-in-chief Carsten Juste remains firm. "We are sorry for any offence caused by the drawings, but we cannot apologise for freedom of expression," he said. [/quote:290a1b2c35] The protestors want the govenment to apologise. The government insist that they are not responsible for what papers publish. A basic tenet of a free society. I suspect that many of the protestors cannot relate to this idea as they have no experience of it. Other are just cynically manipulating it for their own ends.
I agree with E.M. - they should have apologized. Also, there is no freedom of speech, just an illusion. The are sacred things for every culture, thus making such cartoons and then trying to justify'em with "freedom of speech" is moronism.
Sure there's freedom of speech. There are a few limits, at least in the American version (fire in a theatre, fighting words, sedition), but within those limits, a person can say anything they want. Even though the US is primarily populated by Christians, he can say that Jesus and Mary liked to have sex with each, often with the use of a gerbil. He can say that five-year-olds should be sold as sex slaves to the rich. He can say that abortions should be performed as a source of nutrition. He can say that all of those niggers should go back to Africa and die of AIDS. Let's see, that hits on religion, protection of the young, further protection of the young and cannibalism, and racism. That pretty much rounds out the big sacred cows of the US, but Ba can say those things if he wanted to. Note that none of these are opinions that he agrees with or supports. But he is allowed to say that. He has that freedom, should he choose to exercise it. However, with freedom comes consquences. Simply because Ba is allowed to say these things does not mean that others have to like it, or him. They can boycott any business he becomes a part of, deny him employment, shun him socially, and do many other things to show their displeasure. These do not prevent him from saying them in the first place, though. The only thing preventing him is the fact that he is not a complete and total fuckwad.
Nope Ba, there is no. Because you have state-corporate-internal(most people have) censorship. As you said - you don't say/do eveything you are thinkng about. I'm not a religious one and don't care much about this situation, but why should anyone hurt other's people feelings([b:061ea1cd08]knowingly[/b:061ea1cd08])? We are children of secular education and society, but whe should understand/leave alone people of other persuasions. IMHO
The state does not control Ba's speech. Well, except for those exceptions Ba noted, but those have to do with inciting others to break other laws, or to keep him from harming others by stating as fact things that can harm others' reputations, and not to do with expressing opinions. Outside of that, they cannot legally make Ba stop saying what he wishes. Nor do corporations. Corporations have no bearing on what Ba can or cannot say. Perhaps Ivan is thinking of the fact that a newspaper may not print it. So? It is the newspaper's decision to repeat what Ba says. That is their freedom. They do not prevent Ba from saying it. As for the internal decision, that's rather the point. People can choose not to do things as easily as they can choose to do them. If this were not true, it would not be freedom, but compulsion. Ba does not say those things, in large part because he does not agree with them. Others, who do believe these things, or simply don't care what people think of them, do say them. No, people should not try to harm others' feelings. But with freedom of speech comes the ability to do so. And if one does so, one faces the consquences for one's actions. Which, as Vetinari pointed out, is a major part of freedom.
I, like probably Ba, suppose that it makes a difference wether you refrain from expressing your opinion because you fear negative consequences in business, job, relationships... that would be your inner censor... or wether expressing an opinion differing from that of your state costs you your basic rights, and may even land you in prison. When you said, in one part of Germany, until a few years ago, that the government sucks and the party is a bunch of senile dumbasses, you weren't allowed to continue your education, and maybe landed in prison. Now, saying that about the government will not have any consequences at all. Saying the same about your teacher might cost you an A-grade. That is unfair, and wrong. But to compare that situation, is out of proportion. In the first state, there is no freedom of speech. In the second, there is - even though what you say and do might, on a personal level, have consequences for you, just as has telling your girlfriend her butt became huge over the holidays will result in celibacy, which might make you refrain from saying it. You have the [i:75986b2bf3]right [/i:75986b2bf3]to say it though - the decision is yours. As long as [i:75986b2bf3]you [/i:75986b2bf3]are your censor, you're kind of free. No one and nothing will ultimately free you from the reign having to live with other human beings, puts on all of us.
As a side note, as you mention old German censors, it was 'reported'* that England fans going to the World Cup this summer may find themselves in jail if they perform Hitler salutes (or similar... think of the Fawlty Towers sketch). I haven't heard anything to confirm this, but if it were true it would be quite interesting in the context of this debate - if you leave aside that the people most likely to make the salute will be inebriated and/or a few neurons short of a brain cell. *by The Sun, a tabloid, hence the inverted commas
The latest World Cup fad in the Netherlands is wearing orange Nazi helmet replicas. What splendid neighbourly love! Hsing, inner censors work for the most part, but it does ultimately rely on human decency. In the end, the majority will suffer under the extremities (i.e. people who disregard social conventions). It's the lesser of two evils, but it's still flawed.
[quote:48af29b0a6="Cynical_Youth"]The latest World Cup fad in the Netherlands is wearing orange Nazi helmet replicas. What splendid neighbourly love![/quote:48af29b0a6] Oh, come on, if they're going to wear German helmets, they should wear the kaiser variety!
They should, but you know Dutch hooligans and their fascination with historical accuracy (The Netherlands was neutral in WWI). They'll stick to it even if it limits their effectiveness in expressing their love of the German people.
Hoo... Speaking of Nazi memorabilia, do you remember the hullaballoo about Prince Harry showing up at a costume party wearing a Nazi uniform? I don't remember if he apologized or not, though...
[quote:29d0d738d4="Electric_Man"]As a side note, as you mention old German censors, it was 'reported'* that England fans going to the World Cup this summer may find themselves in jail if they perform Hitler salutes (or similar... think of the Fawlty Towers sketch). I haven't heard anything to confirm this, but if it were true it would be quite interesting in the context of this debate - if you leave aside that the people most likely to make the salute will be inebriated and/or a few neurons short of a brain cell. *by The Sun, a tabloid, hence the inverted commas[/quote:29d0d738d4] I have to research that. I actually thought back only... 18 to twenty years... when thinking of censors. I don't have to comment on Hitler-era and Kaiserzeit to illustrate the difference it makes, do I?
[quote:57aa0b2049="Electric_Man"]England fans going to the World Cup this summer may find themselves in jail if they perform Hitler salutes (or similar... think of the Fawlty Towers sketch). ... the people most likely to make the salute will be inebriated and/or a few neurons short of a brain cell.[/quote:57aa0b2049] That Fawlty Towers sketch was damn funny though. I don't think I've ever laughed so hard.
I'm posting this on behalf of Roman the K: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As I'm on a mobile phone, I won't be including any quotes. First, Kapten Karies: Iran is not making a mistake, man. Plenty of folks think that the UN only agreed to the formation of Israel because of the Holocaust, and even that was touch and go. It's a matter of legitimacy of existance. Also, Jews, for the greater extent, have kept both a religious and national identity for over 2000 years, so a genocide of Jews, Polish Jews or otherwise, does indeed affect other Jews. Very much so. Israel in particular, in fact, as the folks heading here at first were mostly those who just about had it with being blamed for everything, and being subsequently pogrommed. Like the war Russia lost against China, and the Tzar turned the rage of the soldiers against the Jews. We're also the folks who try to keep the memory of the Holocaust as alive as possible, so Iran's actions as of late are both a national and personal slap in the face. Warmongering, in one word. The quote you brought was cool. Personally, I wish there were more folks like that around. Now, to add to what Hsing said, there were apparently three pictures added to the twelve that the Danish imams sent onwards. They had nothing to do with the Danish paper, and when asked about them later the imams said that they showed the opinions of the Danish re Islam. At least one of them appeared in protests in the PA. Frankly, it looks like deliberately adding more fuel to the flames. Mowgli, I love Vysotskiy. That man had good songs. Back to Kapten Karies. As Marcia said, it's not a matter of religion but of fundamentalism. Also, Jerusalem isn't all that important to Islam. The few indications of Islam's interest amount to a Jewish story regarding Mohammed trying to convert the Jews of Jerusalem, and then leaving them be when they refused (which was, I believe, to illustrate the mutual respect between Judaism and Islam), and a Muslim story regarding Mohammed's rise to Heaven from the spot on which the Al-Aqtza mosque is now standing on. The legend probably arose after the mosque was built, and not before. It stood neglected during the later part of the Ottoman Empire's rule, and was only renovated by Haj Amin Il-Husseini some 80 years ago during the British rule, when he was the Mufti of the Jerusalem. The truly important cities for Islam are Mecca and Medina, and Jerusalem's importance is mostly overblown due to nationalistic reasons rather than religious ones. Onwards to Trollmother. Not sure when they started burning Swedish flags relatively to the next event, but some radical Swedish anti-foreigner group does house a Mohammed-cartoon contest on their website. Now, Avgi. I think you're taking this a bit too personally. Now, while most cartoons were just silly, some were deliberately insulting. The one with the halo, for example, equated Islam to the devil in disguise. Enough Muslims can see that. Yes, the reaction was overreacted. Yes, fanaticism and treating women like things is bad. Equating the entire faith to fanaticism and treating women like things is also bad, I think you'll agree. The reaction was far too much, but the feeling of insult was quite justified. The article was quite interesting, but it wasn't just Saudi-Arabia that profited from this, though. The hatred of any non-Muslim has been fanned in most Arab countries and in Iran for quite some time now. Turning the hatred of the populace away from the regime and onto someone else is the way dictators survive. As for paintings and ikons of Mohammed in Iran, this is a common mistake on the writer's part. Islam is split between the Sunni and the shi'ite, and the latter don't follow the oral law. As such, they wouldn't be forbidden to paint pictures of Mohammed. Now, Spiky. I find that the media treats islam in a one-sided manner. It equates radical Islam to Islam in general, and shapes public opinion accordingly. The voices in Islam that call for calm are usually left unheard, as are those who say that those who murder in the name of Islam are not truly Muslim. They remain unheard, due to others within and without that find it convenient for them to be unheard. Nations like Jordan remain mostly ignored by the media. The media wants sensation. We pay the price. Now, onwards to Ba and Ivan. While individuals are free to say what they please, the only individuals in the media with the same freedom are those that own it. A newspaper is free to publish whatever it pleases, but all it really means is the person who owns it is free to publish whatever he pleases. It still equals freedom of speech, but it's a bit... troubling. Most people are shaped by what they see and hear in the media, and so one can say that a few very rich individuals shape the world... But I digress. The press may very well be allowed to say anything, but the issue is responsibility. I for one, do not approve of publications that deliberately encourage hatred. Should the paper be held responsible for spreading hate? Should other papers in Europe be also held for the same? Why should fanning the flames be okay, when there is more than enough of it going around as it is?
Russia lost war to Japan (1904-1905). But Nikolay II was just an anti-Semite bastard, so it was only continuation of his policy, nothing to do with Port-Arthur(no one turned soldiers to nothing). Both prime ministers (Vitte, Stolypin) tried to persuade him to stop that insane discrimination, but... That's another story. I'm with you, Roman, regarding the media. Most of the media is a mouthpiece of their owners. P.S. Vysotskiy is great.
[i:be63e11315]Onwards to Trollmother. Not sure when they started burning Swedish flags relatively to the next event, but some radical Swedish anti-foreigner group does house a Mohammed-cartoon contest on their website. [/i:be63e11315] not radical- racial :x it is a small group braindeads with a lousy site. They has taken away the contest "so that no Swedes would be harmed by the evil muslims" I wonder who is most evil?
Roman_K, I think you are on to something when you say that a few very rich individuals shape the world, at least as far as the media is shaping the world. Many of the United States Drug laws are a direct result of William Randolph Hearst's efforts. He was out to marginalize Blacks and Hispanics and look how well he succeeded. I don't think every reporter or editor can be painted with that same brush but we should always be cognizant that newspapers are out to sell newspapers and ads and make money, and some publishers are in the game for the power, and that goes for every other form of media As far as Islam is concerned this latest protest is only making me more certain that a few individuals are using the religion to promote their own agendas. It is an old old story and I for one am sick of it. The Book of Revelation ends with a curse. I used to sort of ignore that and think that Islam was just another way to God, but I have been changing my mind. If it ever was a way to try to reach God it has been corrupted beyond recognition.
Tamy, you have put your finger right on it - once a religion is established, and it becomes part of everyday life that one is assumed to adhere to, then it gives a peg to hang any sort of prejudice or hatred on - it's similar to politics, but because it is "religion" it is expected to be less (or possibly even not) susceptible to rational thought - "hang your common sense on the hook by the door as you enter the church" - why cannot people just look at the world the way it is, accept it, and live in it - trying to find Someone to either intercede to help or else who can be blamed is counterproductive Edited because I spotted a double negative which changed the whole meaning!
I'll post what I think of this. Um, I posted it on another site. It's absolutely bloody rediculous. A Danish newspaper publishes a cartoon about Muhammad, in a supposedly free speaking society, and the editor gets sacked and apparently they're all going to hell. It may be in the Koran that images of Muhammad cannot be displayed, especially not ones that mock him. But it's also in the Koran that no images of anybody can be displayed. That means no photos. It's ludricious. I load of age old believes that are totally unneeded in the modern world. The protesters are conveintally remembering the laws of Islam that apply to other people, and not the ones that apply to them. On the front page of the Sun today, is a little girl of twenty months with a hat saying 'I [Heart] Al Quieda.' There's other signs too. 'Massacre those who insult Islam.' Oh hang on a minute! BOOM! The Muslims are peaceful aren't they? Is that why a few fundamentalist fuckwits are making death threats to people? All they're doing with these hate filled marches is showing that these comics are actually true for some people. They kill themselves in the name of Islam. In fact, I even saw a sign saying 'TO HELL WITH FREE SPEECH.' Ironic isn't it? THEY'RE THE ONES BLOODY PROTESTING! If there was no bloody free speech, they wouldn't be holding up bloody stupid banners proclaiming deaths! 'Watch out Denmark, Osama's back.' Ahem. Arrest that man holding up that sign! He seems to know that Bin Laden is back! How does he know? He doesn't! Oh well! All these fundamentalists are doing is making movements like the BNP seem almost saint like. All they're doing is providing more petrol for the fire. They say that England are going to get it apparently. England hasn't even done anything! But even if we had, we wouldn't deserve bomb attacks! Apparently Jeremy Paxman (presenter of Newsnight) said something about the comics that the Muslims didn't like. So what do they do. 'Watch your back Paxman!' Again showing their stupidity and hypocricy. They seem like barbarians, shouting obscene stuff about people. I think it's came to the point that the Western world might have offended them, but with their attacks on Danish embassies, and their threats of European 9/11's, they have certainly offended the real world, the world that doesn't go mad because of a comic. When I say the real world, I mean everyone who nows about it. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikths, Hindus, atheists, that sort of thing. The ones that don't think violence solves problems, and that by 'beheading' the people that insulted Islam, something good will come. They've offended England and the rest of Europe with their violent, unnecessary, ignorant, and apparently bloody fuelled outburst. People don't like to be told that they are going to suffer terrorist attacks. It's not very nice. You know the most ironic part of this is? The way they're acting, it's as though the cartoon was true...
[quote:f467b9e7ff="Ivan_the_terrible"]Russia lost war to Japan (1904-1905). But Nikolay II was just an anti-Semite bastard, so it was only continuation of his policy, nothing to do with Port-Arthur(no one turned soldiers to nothing). Both prime ministers (Vitte, Stolypin) tried to persuade him to stop that insane discrimination, but... That's another story.[/quote:f467b9e7ff] Thanks for the correction, Ivan. Nikolay I wasn't exactly a bed of roses, either. Heck, from that particular period, the only one was actually fond of was Alexander II. Now, Drunkey. Want to know the fun part? Go back less than 100 years, and the proud Western World is just as crappy, if not moreso. The Sun... well... The Sun requires no comment whatsoever. It's a tabloid, and is even more interested in sensations than the average paper. Now, if I was so inclined, I would point out the ever-growing number of idiots (barbarians, if you will), that plague the Western world. Guess how safe it is to be openly Jewish in France. At night. Or in Russia. You want protests? The racial hatred group of your choice holds plenty of protests. All of them have websites, too. You want slogans? "There ain't no black in the Union Jack!" good enough? The Western World? It's about as Enlightened as a discarded lightbulb. We haven't gotten to the Ideal yet. We'll never get there, and frankly, there will always be plenty of dimness to compensate for any light. Where did you see the slogans, by the way? Sensation... And better far from home, because local sensation just doesn't cut it when there's one far from home... Ah press, dear press... I wonder how many people here saw George W. Bush call for calm together with the king of Jordan, Abdullah II? How many heard of it? Was it even discussed in the media beyond the actual airing, if and where that happened? Or was it just another comma, given as little import as possible because violent protests are much more fun? Now then, are the protesters stupid? Maybe. Protesters anywhere are not known for their intelligence. Having people, sometimes state-approved people, shouting for the riot to go on...? Well, it doesn't go well, now does it? And you know what's the problem with equating Islam to terrorism? It's exactly the same as equating the whole of Europe to hating Islam. Oh, and Islam forbids pictures altogether? Are you absolutely sure about this?
The no pictures thing comes from the second Commandment,"You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image of anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea" Exodus 20:4 I quoted the New Living translation. The original text may be somewhat different, but various groups of Christians and Jews as well as some Muslims do think it wrong to make any images. Personally I feel that sort of adherence to Lawkeeping may be just as bad as taking a picture because the point of not making "graven images" which is from the King James version, is to put the worship of the one God in first place. If you put more effort into the letter of the law than the spirit of the law you can easily miss the point. The Taliban and Osama and friends certainly seem to have missed something.
[quote:469b0460a5="Roman_K"][quote:469b0460a5="Ivan_the_terrible"]Russia lost war to Japan (1904-1905). But Nikolay II was just an anti-Semite bastard, so it was only continuation of his policy, nothing to do with Port-Arthur(no one turned soldiers to nothing). Both prime ministers (Vitte, Stolypin) tried to persuade him to stop that insane discrimination, but... That's another story.[/quote:469b0460a5] Thanks for the correction, Ivan. Nikolay I wasn't exactly a bed of roses, either. Heck, from that particular period, the only one was actually fond of was Alexander II. Now, Drunkey. Want to know the fun part? Go back less than 100 years, and the proud Western World is just as crappy, if not moreso. The Sun... well... The Sun requires no comment whatsoever. It's a tabloid, and is even more interested in sensations than the average paper. Now, if I was so inclined, I would point out the ever-growing number of idiots (barbarians, if you will), that plague the Western world. Guess how safe it is to be openly Jewish in France. At night. Or in Russia. You want protests? The racial hatred group of your choice holds plenty of protests. All of them have websites, too. You want slogans? "There ain't no black in the Union Jack!" good enough? The Western World? It's about as Enlightened as a discarded lightbulb. We haven't gotten to the Ideal yet. We'll never get there, and frankly, there will always be plenty of dimness to compensate for any light. Where did you see the slogans, by the way? Sensation... And better far from home, because local sensation just doesn't cut it when there's one far from home... Ah press, dear press... I wonder how many people here saw George W. Bush call for calm together with the king of Jordan, Abdullah II? How many heard of it? Was it even discussed in the media beyond the actual airing, if and where that happened? Or was it just another comma, given as little import as possible because violent protests are much more fun? Now then, are the protesters stupid? Maybe. Protesters anywhere are not known for their intelligence. Having people, sometimes state-approved people, shouting for the riot to go on...? Well, it doesn't go well, now does it? And you know what's the problem with equating Islam to terrorism? It's exactly the same as equating the whole of Europe to hating Islam. Oh, and Islam forbids pictures altogether? Are you absolutely sure about this?[/quote:469b0460a5] Yeah, no pictures are allowed. And if you were asking about where the banners and all that are, they were in London, outside the Danish Embassy, I think.
I heard a good summation of this debate: Its the fundamentalists on both sides causing the problem the fundamentalist free-speachers who believe that things should be published just to prove that they can and the fundamentalist muslims who take so much offence that death is seen as the answer... But where is the middle ground. Can you have free speach where you curb what you say because you are aware of the effect that it has on others?
oh my god some people are the dumbest things since sliced bread... This is the latest insanity to come out of a debate on the abortion drug RU486... how they got to islam from there who knows... The idiot in parliament, i'm so ashamed edit - to fix link
[quote:495f71925a="spiky"]oh my god some people are the dumbest things since sliced bread... This is the latest insanity to come out of a debate on the abortion drug RU486... how they got to islam from there who knows... The idiot in parliament, i'm so ashamed edit - to fix link[/quote:495f71925a] Oh my god... *slaps forehead* Where the hell did she get that from? Bloody hell. I thought it was only the idiot men in parliament that were causing trouble over this. How wrong I was. Idiot country!
[quote:9f83e0ed72="drunkymonkey"] Yeah, no pictures are allowed. [/quote:9f83e0ed72] So Muslim countries do not have newspapers or television?
[quote:9dd82e8806="Marcia"][quote:9dd82e8806="drunkymonkey"] Yeah, no pictures are allowed. [/quote:9dd82e8806] So Muslim countries do not have newspapers or television?[/quote:9dd82e8806] I think that the law was reversed or something. I'm not in fact sure. I was asking my RS teacher about it (who has a Muslim father) and she said that when you go into a strict Muslim's house there's no pictures on the walls and stuff. Only patterns. I imagine that the die hard ones would want to keep the law as it was announced so to speak.
I have many things to say on the subject, but little time to do it in a coherent manner. Roman, you bet I take it personally. Every day of the year poor bastards from all over Asia, including many Muslim counties, pay trafficers through their noses just to be loaded up in rickety boats and dragged in greek waters or pointed at the minefields in the greek borders and left to either cross or die. And do you know why the immigrants do this? In order to live in a country where religious leaders have power only when the flock allows it to them, there is freedom of speech and freedom [b:8511361159]of making fun of everyone.[/b:8511361159] What's next? Drawing and quartering the Monty Pythons for the "Life Of Brian"? Publicly flogging Woody Allen for the Jewish robot tailors in "Sleeper"? Shave Gurinder Chadha's head for "Bend It Like Beckham"? The Indians and the Pakistanis in their respective countries are very hot on the subject of Kashmir. In Greece, there are sizable Indian and Pakistani communities for almost thirty years and there haven't been any hate crimes committed between them. They are free from "having" to hate and I want them to continue having this kind of freedom, no matter what some half-witted fanatic thinks. Second, the whole bruhaha is extremely hypocritical on the part of the instigators of the riots. According to the hadith the depiction of [i:8511361159]all[/i:8511361159] holy figures is a sin. I didn't see any of them complain when the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas in Afghanistan a few years back. And they "remembered" these sketches right when Iran wants to defy the IAEA and kick the inspectors out. Third, it's just plain dumb. The average Muslim is like "they attacked Iraq as part of a vanity project (which isn't that far from the truth) and now they attack our faith! death to the infidel dogs!" Here, I would like to pause a bit longer. What so many people fail to grasp is the concept of "personal accountability", especially in international affairs. Some South Yutlander is making fun of the fanatics in Iraq, some random Syrian feels intitled to burn me along with my embassy. If I kicked said Syrian's knees in because his grocer hit my cousin's postman with his car, he would say this was uncalled for. As Dumbledore had said, it's time to choose between what is right and what is easy. And what is easy is lump everyone together and accuse them of the crimes and ideologies others are responsible and/or guilty of. The German occupation of Greece during WWII ravaged the country. Do you see me bitch-slapping Hsing? My great-grandmother was uprooted from the city she was born and raised, Instabul and before that the Turks had done a lot of damage during their 400-year-and-more occupation of my homeland. Was I rude when I visited the place four years ago? The Italian Fascists not only helped the Nazis out a lot, they had many places in Greece under occupation too. Didn't I enjoy myself in Italy every time I visited? Practically every nation in Europe did a spot of occupying or looting during the Crusades. Do I badger the european boardanians? USA backed a terrible dictatorship from 1967 to 1974. Do I call the american members murdering oppressors? No to all. Because I, unlike the rioting fanatics, can tell the difference between disapproving a policy or ideology in the past or the present and disapproving an actual human being.
[quote:85aab04377="mowgli"]Avgi would make a good politician. Which is why she isn't one [/quote:85aab04377] Because when you become a politician, they take your brain and replace it with cotton wool soaked in various juices. Somewhere, there is a great warehouse where they stock the brains of politicians from all over the world. It is called Area 52. But I must add a counter-example to Sacharissa's brilliant text : I saw planet of the apes the other day, again, and I personally want to kick Rinso's butt for all the mean things those nasty mokeys (no, not apes, MONKEYS !!! :badgrin: ) did to poor Charlton Heston and his pals.
Just a few points I don't think 'The Life of Brian' or 'Bend It like Beckham' are valid analogises to this situtation. Firstly 'The Life of Brian' [i:cabf0f7f82]wasn't[/i:cabf0f7f82] about Jesus, thats the whole point of it. It's about Brian. Yes, it parodies Jesus' story but it doesn't directly insult him. 'Bend it like Beckham'...well, i'm not completely sure why this was even mentioned, I think it's a positive story (on the whole) and it was written by an Asian woman based on her experiences of being a british Asian. While the cartoon was of Momammed saying why is everyone who 'follows me a wanker.' While people *may* take offence at the Life of Brains bibical references, thats nlot it's goal, the cartoon was only meant to offend. And there *WAS* uproar at the time about 'The Life of Brian', there wasn't violence or anything, but thats becuase it wasn't released at a time when christinity was a religion under attack. The general muslim doesn't think 'kill the western infindle' but i'm sure they do feel offended and insulted by the mocking of they're entire religion. It's the few idoits that exist in EVERY culture and religion that cuase the trouble. I get the general impression that generally people these days think that this reaction is simpaethic (common-stupid words) only to the extreme muslim culture. Which simply isn't true.
[quote:78e59a503a="drunkymonkey"][quote:78e59a503a="Marcia"][quote:78e59a503a="drunkymonkey"] Yeah, no pictures are allowed. [/quote:78e59a503a] So Muslim countries do not have newspapers or television?[/quote:78e59a503a] I think that the law was reversed or something. I'm not in fact sure. I was asking my RS teacher about it (who has a Muslim father) and she said that when you go into a strict Muslim's house there's no pictures on the walls and stuff. Only patterns. I imagine that the die hard ones would want to keep the law as it was announced so to speak.[/quote:78e59a503a] Yes, some Muslims may not have pictures in their homes. But that's just [i:78e59a503a]some[/i:78e59a503a] Muslims. Deciding how to live in your own home is completely different than telling others what to do or say. I know of some Orthodox Jews who find televison programming offensive. So.... they don't own televisions. They don't go around telling other people that they shouldn't watch television.
[quote:0c72f00388="Rincewind"]While the cartoon was of Momammed saying why is everyone who 'follows me a wanker.'[/quote:0c72f00388] The translation was 'it's tough being loved by wankers', which doesn't mean that [b:0c72f00388]everyone[/b:0c72f00388] who loves him is one... Sorry, I couldn't let Rinso be right for a whole post...
[quote:514f0a5d5e="Katcal"] The translation was 'it's tough being loved by wankers' [/quote:514f0a5d5e] I could see the same caption with a picture of Jesus.
[quote:c0d0288940="Marcia"][quote:c0d0288940="Katcal"] The translation was 'it's tough being loved by wankers' [/quote:c0d0288940] I could see the same caption with a picture of Jesus.[/quote:c0d0288940] I could see the same caption with a picture of me sometimes... although to be perfectly exact, you would have to replace "loved" with "surrounded"
[quote:51fc6f2631="Katcal"][quote:51fc6f2631="Rincewind"]While the cartoon was of Momammed saying why is everyone who 'follows me a wanker.'[/quote:51fc6f2631] The translation was 'it's tough being loved by wankers', which doesn't mean that [b:51fc6f2631]everyone[/b:51fc6f2631] who loves him is one... Sorry, I couldn't let Rinso be right for a whole post...[/quote:51fc6f2631] Whether it's Rinso's or Katcal's translation - either way, it was respectful to [i:51fc6f2631]Mohammed[/i:51fc6f2631] - he is shown as disapproving of the actions of the wankers - it is the wankers themselves who are stirring up the trouble because they feel that [i:51fc6f2631]they[/i:51fc6f2631] have been insulted!
A few finds. The Jews Strike Back-sort of More calls on a boycott-against Egypt this time A new perspective on the "Holocaust Laws" argument A Morrocan magazine wonders why what goes for Muhhamad doesn't go for the other two Prophets
[quote:9867ecd1aa="Pixel"][quote:9867ecd1aa="Katcal"][quote:9867ecd1aa="Rincewind"]While the cartoon was of Momammed saying why is everyone who 'follows me a wanker.'[/quote:9867ecd1aa] The translation was 'it's tough being loved by wankers', which doesn't mean that [b:9867ecd1aa]everyone[/b:9867ecd1aa] who loves him is one... Sorry, I couldn't let Rinso be right for a whole post...[/quote:9867ecd1aa] Whether it's Rinso's or Katcal's translation - either way, it was respectful to [i:9867ecd1aa]Mohammed[/i:9867ecd1aa] - he is shown as disapproving of the actions of the wankers - it is the wankers themselves who are stirring up the trouble because they feel that [i:9867ecd1aa]they[/i:9867ecd1aa] have been insulted![/quote:9867ecd1aa] Exactly. I fact it's making fun of wankers that causes problems, the gods have a sense of humour, or they wouldn't have created Rinso.
[quote:996ce080cf="Rincewind"]Just a few points I don't think 'The Life of Brian' or 'Bend It like Beckham' are valid analogises to this situtation. Firstly 'The Life of Brian' [i:996ce080cf]wasn't[/i:996ce080cf] about Jesus, thats the whole point of it. It's about Brian. Yes, it parodies Jesus' story but it doesn't directly insult him. 'Bend it like Beckham'...well, i'm not completely sure why this was even mentioned, I think it's a positive story (on the whole) and it was written by an Asian woman based on her experiences of being a british Asian.[/quote:996ce080cf] It wasn't an analogy, more like an exaggeration, but not that far off the mark. The Life Of Brian has to be seen to be believed. Woody Allen is, well, Woody Allen and Bend It Like Bekham has a girl who dresses up in shorts, plays football, refuses to have an arranged marriage and snogs a blond christian as [i:996ce080cf]the heroine[/i:996ce080cf]. And all of these satires on religions and cultures were made by people of the respective faiths and cultures and were still met with disapproval. The saving grace is that the rest said "what's the big deal?" But if fanatics of all sides are to prevail, then noone will have the right to satirize anything. Fanatics have an uncanny ability to create "sacred ideas and people" ten at a time. [quote:996ce080cf="Rincewind"] While the cartoon was of Momammed saying why is everyone who 'follows me a wanker.' While people *may* take offence at the Life of Brains bibical references, thats nlot it's goal, the cartoon was only meant to offend. [/quote:996ce080cf] This cartoon was published at a much later date and it was criticising the [i:996ce080cf]deaths[/i:996ce080cf] forheavenssake because of a bunch of cartoon published way back in September. [quote:996ce080cf="Rincewind"] And there *WAS* uproar at the time about 'The Life of Brian', there wasn't violence or anything, but thats becuase it wasn't released at a time when christinity was a religion under attack. [/quote:996ce080cf] 99% of the greek population are Christian Orthodoxes but that primate reject that is our Archbishop claims the christians in the country were under attack. When someone wants to play the victim card, facts have no bearing either way. [quote:996ce080cf="Rincewind"] The general muslim doesn't think 'kill the western infindle' but i'm sure they do feel offended and insulted by the mocking of they're entire religion. It's the few idoits that exist in EVERY culture and religion that cuase the trouble. I get the general impression that generally people these days think that this reaction is simpaethic (common-stupid words) only to the extreme muslim culture. Which simply isn't true.[/quote:996ce080cf] I posted the descriptions of the cartoons as well as links to the wiki page where they could be found. These cartoons were showing how the illustrators, invited to comment on the fact that the writer of a children's book on Muhammad(PBUH) couldn't find anyone to draw the pictures. These people saw Muhammad (PBUH) as either a historical figure (some saw him as betrayed by his followers) or the founder of a violent creed. I ask again; how do the protestors think they prove the latter wrong? About the attack on their religion: This was the bone-crushingly earth-shutteringly stupid thing about the attack on Iraq, and the attack on Afghanistan wasn't all that well planned and executed either. Despite President Bush's assurances to the contrary, this was a vanity war that victimised those of muslim faith. But as I had said before, just because you were personally wronged, that doesn't justify your generalised attack of others. That result in death of all things! Definately check this out
