Denmark has re-printed those insulting cartoons of Mohammad (Praise be upon Him)
Riots ensue.
You'd think they would learn by now. You don't **** with Mohammad. You don't! 
[quote="BigMo420"]
| Quote: |
| You'd think they would learn by now. You don't **** with Mohammad. You don't! |
As Muhammad has been dead for about 1,400 years, I don't see how anybody could **** with him. As for these cartoons, we have a tradition of free press here in Europe. You might not like it, but it's no excuse to go round having riots. They say:
If you insult black people, you're racist.
If you insult Jews, you're anti-semitc.
If you insult homosexuals, you're homophobic.
If you insult Muslims, it's freedom of speech!
It's freedom of speech to disagree and to state your opinion. It's an abuse of freedom of speech to just insult someone.
| loyal wrote: |
They say:
If you insult black people, you're racist.
If you insult Jews, you're anti-semitc.
If you insult homosexuals, you're homophobic.
If you insult Muslims, it's freedom of speech!
It's freedom of speech to disagree and to state your opinion. It's an abuse of freedom of speech to just insult someone. |
It may be in bad taste, but that does not make it right to respond by rioting. Comparisons with racism and homophobia don't hold - being a Muslim is a choice. There is a long tradition of cartoons being satirical - even quite vicious sometimes - going back at least 3 centuries (some would argue much longer). The cartoons of Mohammed are not particularly vicious to my mind - they are quite tame. The objection raised by many Muslims is that they do not think the prophet should be depicted in any form. I'm afraid the answer to that is - tough! If you don't want to see a depiction of the prophet then don't read the cartoons.BigMo420, I honestly don't know whether Islam promotes this close-mindedness, nor do I care.
I'll only advice, as a human to fellow human, that you have a thing to improve in yourself - which is your lack of tolerance and understanding of others. That is, in my opinion, is one of the greatest virtues of a moral human being.
If you ask me, you need to question your religion, if it does not educate this value.
Now as a moderator to a user, please use clean language.
Thank you.
ok, there is a form of free press but insulting a individual that is loved and praised by a nation. It would be the same that muslims publish some cartoons about individuals that are loved and praised by us.
Therefore i suggest stop this publishing of cartoons and in return we want the direct stop of this riots.
I hope that everyone will be smart enough that this can't go further.
I hope that people will agree with me.
| BigMo420 wrote: |
Denmark has re-printed those insulting cartoons of Mohammad (Praise be upon Him)
Riots ensue.
You'd think they would learn by now. You don't **** with Mohammad. You don't! |
If you are so angry why don't you make some cartoons yourself about bush/jesus/god whatever??
If you don't get that in europe we make cartoons about everyone who's impartant. (You should infact thank those Danes they think that Mohammeds important)( 
). Anyway its just what some of us do. Make fun of each other and why some Muslims get so angry... I get it but you are just overreacting. | Lord Klorel wrote: |
ok, there is a form of free press but insulting a individual that is loved and praised by a nation. It would be the same that muslims publish some cartoons about individuals that are loved and praised by us.
Therefore i suggest stop this publishing of cartoons and in return we want the direct stop of this riots.
I hope that everyone will be smart enough that this can't go further.
I hope that people will agree with me. |
No, I don't agree at all. This is tantamount to blackmail - we won't insult you because you might riot. That is not acceptible. Freedom of speech does not work like that, it is not conditional.
BTW - Muslims and others frequently publish material which is insulting to individuals which are loved and praised by those in the West. Why should they not?
I do not think that insulting people simply for the sake of it is a very good idea. That is different, however, from saying it should be banned. Have you actually looked at the cartoons in question? | Bikerman wrote: |
| loyal wrote: | They say:
If you insult black people, you're racist.
If you insult Jews, you're anti-semitc.
If you insult homosexuals, you're homophobic.
If you insult Muslims, it's freedom of speech!
It's freedom of speech to disagree and to state your opinion. It's an abuse of freedom of speech to just insult someone. |
It may be in bad taste, but that does not make it right to respond by rioting. Comparisons with racism and homophobia don't hold - being a Muslim is a choice. There is a long tradition of cartoons being satirical - even quite vicious sometimes - going back at least 3 centuries (some would argue much longer). The cartoons of Mohammed are not particularly vicious to my mind - they are quite tame. The objection raised by many Muslims is that they do not think the prophet should be depicted in any form. I'm afraid the answer to that is - tough! If you don't want to see a depiction of the prophet then don't read the cartoons. |
I understand them doing it once and not really foreseeing the repercussions of it. I don't see the point in doing it again, with the sole intention of getting people riled up for nothing. Not that it excuses people's dramatized reactions to it, but they really have no justification or reasoning for posting the pictures again...outside of just trying to start crap (which, if that's what they want, I say give it to them).The only way to make religion harmless is to look into it's culture. I do not care whether you're a muslim, a jew or a hindu, but if you are willing to kill (yeah, the artist has gotten his treats), for the sake of a symbol. - And the symbol alone, you might have gotten the wrong ideas.
The only way to make these drawings harmless, is to print them. To look at them, read them and understand them. To shake our heads in disagreement, agreement, and maybe even disgust. But hey, they are ONLY drawings, just symbols. Nothing more than what we make them.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| I understand them doing it once and not really foreseeing the repercussions of it. I don't see the point in doing it again, with the sole intention of getting people riled up for nothing. Not that it excuses people's dramatized reactions to it, but they really have no justification or reasoning for posting the pictures again...outside of just trying to start crap (which, if that's what they want, I say give it to them). |
So what you are saying is that if the possible repercussions of free-speech are violence then it should not be exercised? Anyone wishing to supress free-speech then simply has to threaten violence to succeed. I find that unacceptible. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Anyone wishing to supress free-speech then simply has to threaten violence to succeed. I find that unacceptible. |
Just as I find it unacceptable that people make a mockery of the holiest of holies. There will be more riots. There will be more burnings. People will NOT make fun of Muhammad, Praise be upon Him! | BigMo420 wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Anyone wishing to supress free-speech then simply has to threaten violence to succeed. I find that unacceptible. |
Just as I find it unacceptable that people make a mockery of the holiest of holies. There will be more riots. There will be more burnings. People will NOT make fun of Muhammad, Praise be upon Him! |
As I said - this is unacceptible. Threats of violence are profoundly undemocratic. You are free to believe what you like but don't try and tell me what I should believe or do. If I want to make fun of the prophet then I will do so. If you threaten violence as a result then you are a terrorist and, under our laws, should be locked-up. | BigMo420 wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Anyone wishing to supress free-speech then simply has to threaten violence to succeed. I find that unacceptible. |
Just as I find it unacceptable that people make a mockery of the holiest of holies. There will be more riots. There will be more burnings. People will NOT make fun of Muhammad, Praise be upon Him! |
Aperantly people do make fun of him. And if you make such a fuzzzz about it make some Jesus cartoon.
Apart from that i find i a bit.... weird/funny, with the "praise" stuff. Are you a real fanatic muslim or is this... | Bikerman wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | I understand them doing it once and not really foreseeing the repercussions of it. I don't see the point in doing it again, with the sole intention of getting people riled up for nothing. Not that it excuses people's dramatized reactions to it, but they really have no justification or reasoning for posting the pictures again...outside of just trying to start crap (which, if that's what they want, I say give it to them). |
So what you are saying is that if the possible repercussions of free-speech are violence then it should not be exercised? Anyone wishing to supress free-speech then simply has to threaten violence to succeed. I find that unacceptible. |
No, I personally don't care what they do either way. I just don't see a true, useful point to their actions when their only intentions are to stir people up. I don't condone suppression of freedom of speech, I don't condone the violence that ensues because of the actions by this paper, and I don't condone the intentional action of stirring up problems for the sake of stirring up problems. I don't honestly think, in this situation, that anyone is doing the "right" thing. Now, if they had other reasons for doing this or some logic behind this that would actually contribute something positive, fine. But I can't say I encourage people to purposefully insult people and stir up problems just because of free speech. That's not what free speech is about.i look at the title of this thread... and then i look at this*.
Aside from the inanity of the outrage (Has anyone even seen the Danish comics? They're not really that bad.), i'm baffled by the hypocrisy of it. i see a crowd of Muslims screaming murder that their "prophet" is depicted badly... while at the same time burning Danish flags and carrying around placards with defaced pictures of various presidents and other people and symbols.
Excuse me?
You want people to respect your icon... but you have the right to piss on (literally!) theirs? Excuse me?
And don't try and argue "well they did it to Mohamed, so we can do it to ___." Come on. That's the moral literacy of a three-year-old. If you claim defacing an icon is wrong, then you shouldn't freaking well be doing it yourself.
-----------------------
If i say i will draw picture of Mohamed bent over a desk with Osama taking him from behind, i dare you to stop me. Go ahead. Show me your "religion of peace". i say to liljp617 that i fully understand the possible consequences of making such a drawing... and i will not be cowed by terrorists. Yes, terrorists: people that try to use terror to achieve a goal. They will not scare me out of making that drawing if i want to. A drawing harms no one except people who want to control knowledge to control others.
i invite anyone to do the same with a picture of something or someone i hold dear. i don't really care. i might even laugh - if it's funny; if it's just offensive, i'll just roll my eyes. Either way i won't take to the streets and riot.
* see last panel of the comic. Absolutely agree with the above - and I will even go further. People who give-in to this terrorism (which it is, terrorism, pure and simple, let's be quite clear about that) are craven, and they should think long and hard about the benefits of free speech and other democratic freedoms that they take for granted.
Free-speech and other democratic rights were not just 'given'. People fought and died to win many of the rights we take for granted (and I'm not just talking about World Wars, the list includes trades-unionists, civil rights workers/activists, suffragettes and many others).
To voluntarily surrender those rights because some religiously inspired cranks don't like a few fairly tame cartoons, and use terrorism to try and make their point, is pathetic, weak and, frankly, disgusting.
Enjoying the freedoms we do comes at a price - being prepared to stand up for them, even when you strongly disagree with what is said. It's easy to stand-up for people when they say things you agree with, but the true test is to stand up for those whose views you find troubling or even abhorrant.
By all means object to the cartoons if they offend you - I will support your right to do so just as vehemently as I support the rights of the publishers and cartoonists. Threaten violence, however, and I call you a terrorist and I want to see you before the courts.
If someone silences his wrong/bad/weird/whatever opinions because of fear of retorsion from some retards who threaten with violence, those retards have won.
Praise be unto all freedom of speech fighters!
Has anyone noticed the similarity of the topic starter's statements with "Billy Hill"'s signature quoting "PMK-Bear"? Could the (newly registered) TS possibly be one of those two? You guys are easily baited.
| Quote: |
| i look at the title of this thread... and then i look at this*. |
That's what I was saying here. | Arnie wrote: |
Has anyone noticed the similarity of the topic starter's statements with "Billy Hill"'s signature quoting "PMK-Bear"? Could the (newly registered) TS possibly be one of those two? You guys are easily baited.
| Quote: | | i look at the title of this thread... and then i look at this*. |
That's what I was saying here. |
My comments were not uniquely directed at bigmo420, they apply to several posters.I stick by saying no one is in the right here. They're all doing the wrong thing and I refuse to allow freedom of speech (or freedom of anything) to justify the newspaper's actions or the rioter's actions. They're on the same level to me...and that level is a level of sadness that people feel the need to constantly insult others and that those being insulted feel the need to react violently. Freedom of speech, in my opinion, does not give one the right to purposefully insult people for the sake of insulting them. As I said, if the paper has logic behind this or reasoning that will contribute something positive, fine. Post anything you want. But to do something insulting (whether it is insulting to non-Muslims is irrelevant) for nothing except insulting them is not justifiable to me. And I surely refuse to feed into them hiding behind a freedom that people died for. Not good use of freedom of speech to me. And of course, I don't agree with the riots when people died for the freedom to protest peacefully. Not taking any sides, because they're both disgraceful.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| I stick by saying no one is in the right here. They're all doing the wrong thing and I refuse to allow freedom of speech (or freedom of anything) to justify the newspaper's actions or the rioter's actions. They're on the same level to me...and that level is a level of sadness that people feel the need to constantly insult others and that those being insulted feel the need to react violently. |
I find your attitude troubling and depressing.
To equate violent suppression of free speech with publishing a tame cartoon is simply unbelievable. | Bikerman wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | I stick by saying no one is in the right here. They're all doing the wrong thing and I refuse to allow freedom of speech (or freedom of anything) to justify the newspaper's actions or the rioter's actions. They're on the same level to me...and that level is a level of sadness that people feel the need to constantly insult others and that those being insulted feel the need to react violently. |
I find your attitude troubling and depressing.
To equate violent suppression of free speech with publishing a tame cartoon is simply unbelievable. |
The cartoons are irrelevant. It has to do with the motive behind them. I'm sorry, my view of freedom of speech is that you should have at least some minuscule positive motive if you're going to purposely insult somebody. It's really not something that grants you the right to intentionally insult somebody just so you can get a laugh at their reaction. I honestly don't think that's what the people you speak of died for. Like I said, I'm not taking sides. I don't think either side is right in this. One may be more wrong than the other, yes, but that doesn't make the cartoons right. And obviously we're not going to agree, so enough of this.The cartoons were not reprinted simply to offend. They were reprinted as a specific gesture of solidarity with the original cartoonist - Kurt Westergaard - after a plot to assassinate him was uncovered. The publication by several Danish newspapers of the cartoons was a direct response to the attempted assasination and a statement of their commitment to free speech. I think they did exactly the right thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#February_2008_death_threat_and_resultant_reprinting Could have said that in the first place and the debate would have never started.
| Lord Klorel wrote: |
| ok, there is a form of free press but insulting a individual that is loved and praised by a nation. It would be the same that muslims publish some cartoons about individuals that are loved and praised by us. |
It is important for any free press that authority figures CAN be questioned, criticised, and yes ridiculed too. Only dictators demand otherwise.
I've seen all the cartoons, and although some of them could be seen as offensive, they all raise valid questions about how Islam is perceived throughout the world, and why a minority of extremists have managed to claim to represent their religion. | Arnie wrote: |
Has anyone noticed the similarity of the topic starter's statements with "Billy Hill"'s signature quoting "PMK-Bear"? Could the (newly registered) TS possibly be one of those two? You guys are easily baited.
| Quote: | | i look at the title of this thread... and then i look at this*. |
That's what I was saying here. |
i do not know who "Billy Hill" is, and that thread does not look like one i want to be involved in.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| I stick by saying no one is in the right here. They're all doing the wrong thing and I refuse to allow freedom of speech (or freedom of anything) to justify the newspaper's actions or the rioter's actions. They're on the same level to me...and that level is a level of sadness that people feel the need to constantly insult others and that those being insulted feel the need to react violently. Freedom of speech, in my opinion, does not give one the right to purposefully insult people for the sake of insulting them. As I said, if the paper has logic behind this or reasoning that will contribute something positive, fine. Post anything you want. But to do something insulting (whether it is insulting to non-Muslims is irrelevant) for nothing except insulting them is not justifiable to me. And I surely refuse to feed into them hiding behind a freedom that people died for. Not good use of freedom of speech to me. And of course, I don't agree with the riots when people died for the freedom to protest peacefully. Not taking any sides, because they're both disgraceful. |
Doing "insulting" things is what freedom is speech is all about. Otherwise it has no point. Anyone that criticizes an oppressive government is "insulting" that government's sovereignty. Anyone that speaks out against the evil being done by some group is "insulting" that group.
Just consider a realistic example. Suppose you were living in a country run by a small group of rich, elite people that lived off of the blood, sweat and tears of the poor majority. Suppose that a newspaper published a cartoon depicting those people as grossly decadent, while using depictions of the common folk as furniture, or even food. That's pretty offensive, i'd say - depicting these people as cannibals? Certainly offensive. By your logic, it would be wrong to print that image. However, it may serve as a powerful, visual criticism of an unjust society.
Now consider another realistic example. Suppose a cartoonist was deeply concerned that a religion was being co-opted by ruthless extremists. Suppose that he drew a cartoon showing the icon of that religion being turned into a weapon. Offensive? Certainly. And, you have explicitly declared it to be in contradiction to the spirit of freedom of speech (yes, explicitly - this is one of the Danish cartoons). However, it may serve as a powerful and graphic wake-up call to moderates that there is a serious problem in that religion that must be looked into.
A cartoonist - any artist - has a moral obligation to speak the truth as he or she sees it. We all do. If they feel that there is a problem that requires attention - and to hell with how unpleasant it may be to face that problem - then they have a moral obligation to bring that problem to our attention. Freedom of speech is supposed to protect someone when they act on that moral obligation. It is not supposed to protect your sensibilities from offence.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| The cartoons are irrelevant. It has to do with the motive behind them. I'm sorry, my view of freedom of speech is that you should have at least some minuscule positive motive if you're going to purposely insult somebody. It's really not something that grants you the right to intentionally insult somebody just so you can get a laugh at their reaction. I honestly don't think that's what the people you speak of died for. Like I said, I'm not taking sides. I don't think either side is right in this. One may be more wrong than the other, yes, but that doesn't make the cartoons right. And obviously we're not going to agree, so enough of this. |
The motive behind the cartoons is, was and always has been one of concern, backed up by a sense of civic responsibility. As i asked when i first entered this thread: have you seen them?
If someone just wants to insult people, well that's not exactly honourable. But they are protected by the same mechanism as someone that wants to stir people. It's not a perfect world. By protecting the freedom to criticize, we also protect the freedom to insult. There is no way to have one without the other.
The only justifiable reason for any form of censorship is to prevent greater harm... and even that is an iffy case because sometimes the harm caused by censorship is greater than the harm caused by allowing the message to get out. There is no aspect whatsoever of the whole Danish cartoon affair that causes harm. None. Zero. Zip. Thus, there are absolutely no grounds for any kind of censorship. In plain English, every person that says the Danes were wrong to print or reprint those cartoons is wrong. Even if they were meant as pure insult, they cause no harm. And, as is quite obviously clear just by looking at them, they were not meant as pure insult.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Could have said that in the first place and the debate would have never started. |
It should not be necessary. It does not matter whether they were standing up for free speech or reprinting then because they liked the colour scheme. Either way, you were defending an untenable position. Saying those cartoons should have been censored was wrong, and they were reprinted to criticize that wrong.
According to you, it was wrong to reprint those cartoons... up until you heard that they were reprinted in defiance of death threats. Excuse me? First you agree with the people making the threats (if not their methods, you certainly agreed with their principle), then you turn one eighty and agree with condemning them? Every school-age child knows that two wrongs do not make a right. Were the Danes right to print those cartoons or not? If they were right, then you were wrong, and so were those extremists. If they were wrong... then they are still wrong even though they did it to get back at the extremists, because two wrongs don't make a right. So which is it?This scares me. It's scary that so many people can be so idiotic and silly that they do such things just because some drawings. Like if you draw me then I'll kill you.
| Quote: |
San Franciscans have flocked to Dolores Park in the city to compete in, or watch, what has become an Easter Sunday tradition - the "Hunky Jesus" competition.
Officiated by a gay charity group known as the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, which has been active in San Francisco since 1979, the contest pits costumed and usually scantily clad men against each other for the distinction of being declared the most attractive Jesus.
Catholics have labelled the annual pageant blasphemous, considering that previous entrants have included "old school Jesus", "surfer Jesus" and "zombie Jesus", an irreverent take on the Easter message of Christ rising from the dead.
But the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence insist the contest is all part of their mission to "promote universal joy and expiate stigmatic guilt". |
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/03/24/1206206986293.html
Sydney Herald 25 March
Notice that the Catholics have "labeled it blasphemous" rather than rioting and killing people.
A rather more mature and intelligent response than that which many muslims seem to take when mohammad is made fun of.
This , to me, sums up the difference between islam and most other religions in the world. Intelligence and mature thinking. | liljp617 wrote: |
| I stick by saying no one is in the right here. |
You stick by a falsehood then. The newspapers are in the right in terms of the moral values of the country in which they were published and the maniacs who are rioting over a picture are in the wrong.
| Quote: |
| Freedom of speech, in my opinion, does not give one the right to purposefully insult people for the sake of insulting them. |
Actually, it does give one that right. That's the whole point, people in authority aren't allowed to stop other people from saying things just because they don't like it.
Do you know what? If the Muslims had just accepted these cartoons as part of the rough and tumble of a free society, they would have been published and then forgotten about the next day. These cartoons have been republished as well as being aired all over the Internet because Muslims got upset and started rioting and handing out death threats. | jeremyp wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | I stick by saying no one is in the right here. |
You stick by a falsehood then. The newspapers are in the right in terms of the moral values of the country in which they were published and the maniacs who are rioting over a picture are in the wrong.
| Quote: | | Freedom of speech, in my opinion, does not give one the right to purposefully insult people for the sake of insulting them. |
Actually, it does give one that right. That's the whole point, people in authority aren't allowed to stop other people from saying things just because they don't like it.
Do you know what? If the Muslims had just accepted these cartoons as part of the rough and tumble of a free society, they would have been published and then forgotten about the next day. These cartoons have been republished as well as being aired all over the Internet because Muslims got upset and started rioting and handing out death threats. |
They have the right to do as they wish under freedom of speech (except the few things it officially limits). I recognize that. I still don't support their actions, nor do I support people rioting over ink on paper. I don't think the cartoonist should have to live in fear and hiding. I don't think anyone should. But we so often speak of these soldiers, these men and women who served our nations and died in battle so that we could continue to have our freedom, specifically freedom of speech/press. I'm sorry, I don't think those men and women died so everyone could go around blatantly and knowingly insulting people with no positive values in mind. There's quite the difference between criticizing someone's logic or way of life and openly insulting the foundation of their being. Obviously, these are just my opinions, I don't care if anyone really shares them and I personally don't see anything wrong with my stance. I'm neutral to the whole situation in terms of how it started and the reactions toward it. | liljp617 wrote: |
| There's quite the difference between criticizing someone's logic or way of life and openly insulting the foundation of their being. |
Really? Why is that? What does that even mean?
My way of life is founded on rational humanist principles and influenced by politics, money, friends and other external factors. I welcome criticism of my logic and principles - indeed I actively seek it out. If I am spouting nonsense then I wish to have it revealed to me, since I don't want to build my world-view on a lie.
Why is criticising my logic and humanist principles any different from criticising someone's religion?freedom of speech does apply to anything so why should they not be allowed to make fun of some muslim symbol? Ever heard of for example the "life of brian" which completely caricatures the life of jesus?
| liljp617 wrote: |
| I'm sorry, I don't think those men and women died so everyone could go around blatantly and knowingly insulting people with no positive values in mind. |
You keep building this same straw man.
First, once again, these cartoons were not just "blatant and knowing insults with no positive values in mind". They were very artful criticisms of the growing danger of radicalism hijacking the religion of Islam. (And, in the light of the response, they were spot on.) Go ahead and check them out and you'll see.
Second, despite your meandering emotional rhetoric about the men and women that died to protect freedom of speech, you are actively campaigning against said freedom of speech. Freedom of speech exists to encourage and protect criticism, in the hopes that by allowing criticism to challenge everything, tyranny and injustice will be flushed out and defeated. The Danish cartoonists used that right - freedom of speech - to criticize what they saw as a growing threat (the subversion of Islam by radicals, and the use of the religion as an excuse for violence). If the Danish cartoonists had been murdered (and boy, did those radicals want to, at least judging by their rhetoric), those cartoonists would have been a part of the men and women that died for the right to free speech.
Third, who decides whether any given criticism is an insult, or a legitimate criticism? The people being criticized? Excuse me? Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of free speech? ^_^; Seriously, think about it! Me: "i criticize governor Joe for being racist, because of his racist statements." Joe: "i find it insulting to be called a racist, so you don't have the right to make your criticism." Me: "Oh... well... snap." (If that sounds ridiculous, take a step back... isn't that exactly your argument: since Muslims find the depictions insulting, publishing them was wrong?) What about you? No, obviously not. Well, what about "the majority"? Well, shit, that'll make criticizing the majority's opinion pretty tough, won't it? ^_^; i hope you can see the problem now. Being able to shut people down just because you or someone claims their insulting is contrary to free speech.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| There's quite the difference between criticizing someone's logic or way of life and openly insulting the foundation of their being. |
Let me make this absolutely clear, because either you are not getting it, or you are actively ignoring it: the Danish cartoonists did NOT say Islam was wrong, and they did NOT make fun of the religion. They criticized the fact that the religion is being subverted by radicals, and used by violent terrorists. READ THE CARTOONS, and you will see.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| I'm neutral to the whole situation in terms of how it started and the reactions toward it. |
i am not neutral. Your mention of the men and women who have died for the right to free speech was a little bizarre, coming as it did in the middle of an attempt to undermine it. i certainly hope that i'm never called on to die for the sake of free speech, but i will just as certainly not back down and let it be abused in the way you are advocating.
You go ahead and be neutral if you want, but i am not. i am for freedom of speech. i openly and strongly support the rights of the Danish cartoonists, and anyone else, to speak their beliefs, and i openly and strongly condemn you, and all those rioting Muslims, and everyone else who would try to steal those rights away, and suppress free speech.
And of course, because i do support free speech, while i can tell you in no uncertain terms that your beliefs are completely wrong - and even absurd - i will not prevent you from airing them. By contrast, take a look at what you are advocating - you think (you have explicitly claimed!) that someone doesn't have a right to tell someone else their beliefs are completely silly (which, technically, is not what the Danish cartoonists did, but it is what you have been saying they did). Do you really think that counts as supporting free speech? | BigMo420 wrote: |
Denmark has re-printed those insulting cartoons of Mohammad (Praise be upon Him)
Riots ensue.
You'd think they would learn by now. You don't **** with Mohammad. You don't! |
Personally speaking, I think the Muslim world needs to get their heads out of their a****, to put it bluntly.
We Christians don't freak when people make a cartoon of Jesus.
We don't take to the street and riot, set fires, and destroy things.
Islam the religion of peace? I would definately say that actions speak MUCH louder than words. | loyal wrote: |
They say:
If you insult black people, you're racist.
If you insult Jews, you're anti-semitc.
If you insult homosexuals, you're homophobic.
If you insult Muslims, it's freedom of speech!
It's freedom of speech to disagree and to state your opinion. It's an abuse of freedom of speech to just insult someone. |
have you ever been to a stand up comedy show?????? | Soulfire wrote: |
| We Christians don't freak when people make a cartoon of Jesus. |
Really? Hmm..funny that, because I'm old enough to remember when the Life of Brian (Monty Python) was first released. A lot of Christians were freaking out - chaining themselves to cinemas, demanding the film be banned, writing hate mail, death threats to the Python team, death threats to cinema owners, screaming abuse at anyone going to see the film.
The reason for their vitriolic anger? They said the film lampooned Christ (it didn't) and was disrespectful (it wasn't).
| Quote: |
| We don't take to the street and riot, set fires, and destroy things. |
Oh yes 'you' do. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Soulfire wrote: | | We Christians don't freak when people make a cartoon of Jesus. |
Really? Hmm..funny that, because I'm old enough to remember when the Life of Brian (Monty Python) was first released. |
You don't have to be that old to remember Gerry Springer the Opera. | Soulfire wrote: |
Personally speaking, I think the Muslim world needs to get their heads out of their a****, to put it bluntly.
We Christians don't freak when people make a cartoon of Jesus.
We don't take to the street and riot, set fires, and destroy things.
Islam the religion of peace? I would definately say that actions speak MUCH louder than words. |
People that live in glass houses should not throw stones. While (most) Christians will not resort to violence given the same kinds of provocation that drive a significant portion of Muslims into a killing frenzy (and, if i recall, the number given in these forums - by a Muslim or Muslim supporter, no less - put the amount of murderous Muslims at least at 1 in 15... this is not just my opinion, this is a statistical fact), that is only true because the quirks of history happened to grant "your" religion with certain advantages that have made it undesirable to tolerate such volatility. If early Muslims had been anywhere near as good as early Christians at spreading and maintaining empires, they would have had to contend - as the Christians did - with maintaining control over such far-flung groups. Instead, for most of its history, Islam has been all clumped up in a single, rather tight-knit group, surrounded on all sides by enemies, while Christians were the ones doing most of the surrounding, all over the world. In other words, the only reason "you" are less likely to riot in the streets today is because "your ancestors" were so good at spreading Christianity at sword point in the past. i seriously doubt the Incas would be as impressed with the moral superiority of your peaceful nature as you seem to be.
Furthermore, unlike Islam, your religion is not sitting in the cross-hairs of the most powerful military in the world. In point of fact, your religion is the one sighting down the barrel at Islam. i would suggest that if your religion were not as tightly in control of the world's power as they are, they would be far less complacent, and far more dangerous. One needs only look at the Christian reaction when their power base is threatened to see how shallow their "peaceful" nature is. It's a pity i don't save the hate mails i receive, some of them are almost poetic in their ranting fury. And many - if not most - cite chapter and verse while spitting hatred at me. But there are plenty of public examples, freely found on the Frihost forums, if you do a little searching.
Personally, though, i'm not really into this "us-vs.-them" rhetoric. i have no particular problem with Muslims, provided they don't attempt to control anyone else's lives but their own. i'd even happily side with the moderates against the extremists...
... if only the moderates would get off their asses and get serious about doing something about the extremists. | loyal wrote: |
They say:
If you insult black people, you're racist.
If you insult Jews, you're anti-semitc.
If you insult homosexuals, you're homophobic.
If you insult Muslims, it's freedom of speech!
It's freedom of speech to disagree and to state your opinion. It's an abuse of freedom of speech to just insult someone. |
It may be in bad taste, but that does not make it right to respond by rioting. Comparisons with racism and homophobia don't hold - being a Muslim is a choice. There is a long tradition of cartoons being satirical - even quite vicious sometimes - going back at least 3 centuries (some would argue much longer). The cartoons of Mohammed are not particularly vicious to my mind - they are quite tame. The objection raised by many Muslims is that they do not think the prophet should be depicted in any form. I'm afraid the answer to that is - tough! If you don't want to see a depiction of the prophet then don't read the cartoons.[/quote]
If muslim insult non-muslim, it's JIHAD!Oh, right, I forgot Christianity was behind all the evil in the world.
My bad.
Sorry I bismirched the holy name of Islam.
Detect the sarcasm?
Ending point:
Everyone's guilty.
It might be best to discuss this matter a bit more calmly and objectively. Western society has gone through a long and painful process, beginning in the age of enlightenment and with the reformation, in redefining their concepts of religious beliefs, human rights and personal freedoms, a process many other societies and nations have not gone through (although a very good case could be made that Arab societies in the Middle East and North Africa were, until the late 1400s, way ahead not only in a number of sciences but with concepts such as tolerance, religious and other, as well as general respect for those with differing views, beliefs or customs). This process is still continuing to this day, attempting to eradicate discrimination, intolerance and racism. To put it into perspective:
- Growing up in a number of catholic countries, I an certain that similar cartoons directed at a Christian God (or his "Son") would have produced very similar reactions (and still would today).
- My grandmother, a good, deeply believing catholic woman, would never have thought of leaving her home without a headscarf.
- Christian (mostly catholic) pilgrimages and flagellations, although anachronistic to many of us, are still very much "en vogue" in many societies.
- Although the burning of books is, thankfully, no longer a wide spread practice, I do recall a number of cases where literary works are still banned from libraries and schools to this day, in the U.S and elsewhere and, unbelievably, discussions of the pros and cons of evolutionary theory vs. creationism is still being debated in otherwise sane, liberal, modern societies.
- If today, in 2008, I would answer a question asking me to state my religion, by saying that I do not believe in superstitions; that, to me, virginal births, burning bushes, some silly tablets with ten rules to follow or some goody-two-shoes Jesus chap spouting empty phrases is as idiotic and dimwitted as sacrificing goats or reading the future in the stars or by spilling the intestines of some poor animal on the ground, I am sure I would have immediately outstayed my welcome in quite a few households or communities. I might not be burned in effigy (perhaps?!), but I would probably have seriously scraped that thin coat of tolerance that most claim to hold so dear.
Having said that, if we examine many of the protests against items such as these cartoons or the (misquoted and misinterpreted) speech of the Pope shortly preceeding his trip to Turkey, I believe we can recognize that these are prompted and organized for reasons that have very little or nothing to do with religion. In my opinion, the agendas behind these protests can be grouped into two categories:
- Attempts to gain public support for, sometimes very differing, political goals in Palestine, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and any number of countries in and around the Middle East.
- The expression of discontent with the policies of the west in these (and other) regions that are treated not with respect but simply as the source for raw materials (oil in the case of the Middle East) or cheap labour.
In conclusion, I will certainly defend the rights of those publishing these cartoons (especially and all the more in light of any threats of violence which will only strengthen my resolve) just as I defended the rights of Mr. Flynt in publishing Hustler magazine, but it would do well if we stand back to examine what it is that we are attempting to achieve. If it is our intention to "export" western values of tolerance and freedom to the Middle East and to other regions, then we should recognize that we have consistenty done an embarrassingly decrepid (read: piss-poor) job. Not only are we not practicing what we preach but we are consistenty doing the exact opposite and we should be deeply ashamed. | Soulfire wrote: |
Oh, right, I forgot Christianity was behind all the evil in the world.
My bad.
Sorry I bismirched the holy name of Islam.
Detect the sarcasm?
Ending point:
Everyone's guilty. |
i presume you mean all belief systems (or just religions?) are guilty, not all people. No one alive today is guilty because of the Inquisitions, or the Crusades, etc.
Yes, all belief systems are probably guilty of some crime at some point or another, and there is nothing to be gained by saying "my belief system's sins are not as bad as yours'". Pointing out how much better "we Christians" are than "you Muslims" doesn't do a thing toward ending religious intolerance... unless you are seeing something i am missing completely.
The fact is that Islam (like most older belief systems), has a veritable stream of crimes against humanity that it is guilty of. Fine. Whatever. Ancient history. The only time that fact matters is when some radical Muslim struts around shouting about how awesomely perfect his or her religion is (or when someone tries to claim that religion in general is awesomely perfect). In that case, these people need to be educated about the facts. (And of course, replace Christian, Hindu or whatever, and you get the same truth.) Once they have been clued in to the truth - assuming they listen - that fact goes back into the pile in case its needed again.
But that ancient history has no bearing on the behaviour of Muslims today, and certainly no bearing on the behaviour of those rioting protesters. Their sin is not being Muslim. Their sin is being ****** stupid. If Islam is the cause of that stupidity, then we can start discussing whether or not Islam itself is bad. But at no point does history come into play, and the religion itself is innocent until proven guilty in this particular case.
Now... as for whether or not the religion really is guilty in this particular case...
| MaxStirner wrote: |
Having said that, if we examine many of the protests against items such as these cartoons or the (misquoted and misinterpreted) speech of the Pope shortly preceeding his trip to Turkey, I believe we can recognize that these are prompted and organized for reasons that have very little or nothing to do with religion. In my opinion, the agendas behind these protests can be grouped into two categories:
- Attempts to gain public support for, sometimes very differing, political goals in Palestine, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and any number of countries in and around the Middle East.
- The expression of discontent with the policies of the west in these (and other) regions that are treated not with respect but simply as the source for raw materials (oil in the case of the Middle East) or cheap labour.
|
i am not going to comment on the response to the Pope's speech, since this thread is solely about the cartoons and resulting protest. But neither of these reasons adequately explains or justifies the protests to the Danish cartoons. This had nothing to do with politics (except that the cartoons happened to be political commentaries) or economics. This was most certainly a religious uprising - you can see it in the original cause, the statements of the rioters, the demands and threats they made, and so on. Every aspect of this whole thing says that it was religiously motivated. The only point that politics entered into the game was when the protesters claimed they were victims of a hate crime, and the government should have done something about it but did not because it was an anti-Muslim government - but that's just flat out stupid because the cartoons don't and never would constitute a hate crime. (Then later, of course, they claimed that all of Europe was anti-Muslim because they would not censor the cartoons or punish the publishers... but that's still just stupidity, not politics.)
The whole thing is quite simply summarized:
- Newspaper suspects media industry self-censorship against criticizing religion (in this case, Islam and its connection to terrorism).
- Newspaper requests and then prints items in defiance of this censorship (and out of the original concern about the relationship between Islam and terrorism).
- Religion reacts... badly... claiming discrimination (when in fact, the printing was deliberately and explicitly in defiance of discrimination, and the items printed themselves are not discriminatory - the reason they claim the cartoons are discriminatory is because the religion itself generally does not allow them (this is equivalent to a Hindu claiming McDonald's is discriminatory against Hinduism because it serves beef, which Hinduism generally does not allow)).
If you can find a political motivation in any of that, you'll have to spell it out, because i sure can't. All i see is a religious group attempting to control the lives of everyone in that group and out of it - which is pretty much the way it always is. | Indi wrote: |
| If you can find a political motivation in any of that [read complete posts above if needed], you'll have to spell it out, because i sure can't. All i see is a religious group attempting to control the lives of everyone in that group and out of it - which is pretty much the way it always is. [italics added] |
I'll do my best to spell it out: My claim, that protests against the cartoons (first) published in the danish "Jyllands-Posten", were and are politically motivated, is based on a number of facts:
- The cartoons were originally published in late Sept. 2005. Apart from a small (and peaceful) demonstration of about 3.000 to 8.000 persons (depending on source) in front of the newspaper offices as well as two crank calls threatening the cartoons' authors, not much can be recorded, either within Denmark or abroad, that could be interpreted as violent.
- The only other notable events that I am aware of were (a) a request by a number of ambassadors of Middle East nations requesting a meeting with Prime Minister Rasmussen (which was turned down) and (b) a complaint filed by a number of Muslim organizations with the danish police.
- In October and November a number of newspapers reprint the cartoons (or to be more exact, some of the cartoons.) Again, smaller, peaceful protests are organized and a number of complaints through diplomatic channels are lodged, but nothing else.
- Especially interesting were the cartoon reprints by the Egyptian El Fagr newspaper which failed to trigger any type of protest, either by government or religious organizations, or any impromptu "grass roots" protests.
- In early December, a rumor asserting (and later proved as untrue) that a 10.000 US$ reward had been offered for the deaths of the cartoonists, made its round through many western newspapers which blew this out of proportion. It was subsequently discovered that a Pakistani political party (Jamaat-e-Islami) had suggested that such reward could / should be offered by the (Pakistani) government.
- By the end of 2005, all types of complaints are lodged (mostly through diplomatic channels, incl. the UN) but again, the reaction "on the streets" is in general temperate.
- I find it indicative, that serious protests begin months later (in Jan and Feb 2006) only when religious and and political groups and a number of governments pick up the subject. Especially interesting is the fact that protests begin in those countries where such demonstrations are usually prohibited, unless of course the state or meaningful ruling political interests deem it opportune: Libya, Syria and Iran.
- Protests by Muslim organizations in Europe and a number of other more moderate nations with Muslim communities are, in comparison, small and peaceful.
Although the 2006 protests were, for the most part, instigated by religious organizations, it should be remembered that in many Middle Eastern countries, there is no or little separation of church and state and that most of these groups have paramount political interests, and occurrences such as these cartoons are simply a welcome tool to mobilize and radicalize their supporters, who are critical of the west generally. One could claim that these parties / organizations in Iran, Syria, Libya, Pakistan and even Iraq and Turkey were simply indignant at seeing their beliefs ridiculed and had no political motives, but that does seem a bit far-fetched and untypical. One could even argue that the original publication of the cartoons by a right-wing Danish paper with a notorious anti-immigration editorial line, may have had a political component, especially since a similar cartoon contest involving christian / catholic symbols and figures, was considered and then turned down, fearing it would be "deeply offensive to Christians".
In my opinion, the lack of protests concerning these cartoon until this theme was picked up by political interest groups, is more than indicative to "find[ing] a political motivation in any of that [protests]". It is certainly true that many Middle Eastern societies do not separate church and state as we in the west have come to doing (although the influence of the Church, especially in the U.S. but also in a number of European nations seems at times clearly visible, including the current presidential elections), it seems obvious to me that, as was and is usual, these political interests were the catalyst.
On a personal note: One of my better customers here in Frankfurt is an Iranian based software company and I have had the opportunity not only to get personally acquainted with many of my Iranian colleagues, but have visited their offices in Tehran. Although certainly subjective, I find time and time again that we tend not to differentiate sufficiently between political rhetoric coming out of Middle Eastern and Southwest Asian countries, and the usually much more moderate population. Certainly there are religious zealots very actively attempting to sow dissent in these areas, but even most of these use religion much more as a tool to attain their political goals and do not act simply out an earnest inner conviction.You've gotta be kidding, right?
In what way can these contries benefit from a hate towards Denmark? Are they going to invade Denmark or what?
so what if they republish
will MF Hussain have the guts to draw Mohammad
so much for his painting of a Hindu godess naked
| catscratches wrote: |
| You've gotta be kidding, right? |
I didn't intend to imply that I was "kidding", no. These organizations, parties and states "benefit" in the same ways that they have always benefitted: by purposefully misinterpreting and exaggerating statements made by western politicians, media and others who, usually (but not always!) without malice, address subjects which can touch a raw nerve if someone manages to put the right spin on them. If the U.S. President, for example, speaks of a "crusade" against terror, then this word alone will have very different connotations for different people, just as the word "genocide" might, to some, be a very abstract concept, but others might very well lead them to recall the deaths of their own families in their lifetimes.
| catscratches wrote: |
| In what way can these contries benefit from a hate towards Denmark? Are they going to invade Denmark or what? |
Certainly not, and I am unaware that I in the least suggested that this might be the case. It would surely have suited them better, if it had been a U.S., British, French or German newspaper that published the cartoons (although some did reprint them in part), but the fact that they were printed in a western European paper, and given that Western support was of course forthcoming pro press freedom, was sufficient to make an issue out of this matter. The fact that they DID manage to mobilize sympathizers and they DID get world-wide press coverage and they DID excise apologies from any number of western institutions and they DID stir up a heated discussion on this subject matter (including FriHost), is, I believe, proof enough, that they (at least partially) attained their goals. Every real or imagined injustice, and every action that could be interpreted (or misinterpreted) as such, will suffice for someone to spin it to his advantage. It's politics 101: say anything in the least bit controversial and, no matter who true this might be, you will get hammered by those who are so very adept at miss- or out-of-context- quoting. | MaxStirner wrote: |
| I'll do my best to spell it out: My claim, that protests against the cartoons (first) published in the danish "Jyllands-Posten", were and are politically motivated, is based on a number of facts: |
Well, i've looked over your facts, and i still don't see it. But i'm beginning to suspect that the problem is that you and i have different definitions of the word "motivation". See, in my definition, "motivation" means "motivation"... that which motivates doing something. In yours, judging by the facts you offer as evidence, "motivation" means "action"... that which was done. Or possibly "goal"... that which one hoped to gain from an action or that which one hopes an action will accomplish.
Since you took such painstaking effort to spell out your facts, i will take the same effort to spell out why i don't think they measure up.
First, imagine this scenario. There is a man who hates black people - and i mean, he hates them with a passion - just because he thinks they are subhuman savages. One day a black man moves into his neighbourhood. The first man, enraged by this, burns down the black man's home and shoots the black man dead. Now, i think we can all agree here that nothing about this scenario was political. The motivation was racial supremacist bigotry, the action was violence, and the goal was the elimination of the neighbour. So far everything is clear.
Now, let's reboot the scenario. There is a man who hates black people - and i mean, he hates them with a passion - just because he thinks they are subhuman savages. One day a black man moves into his neighbourhood. The first man, enraged by this, goes to his local parliamentary representative and pressures him to file a motion in congress to make it illegal for black people to live in his district. In this case, the action was clearly political (and the goal was to create a law to eliminate the neighbour). But... isn't the motivation still racial supremacist bigotry? Did his motivation change simply because the way he chose to carry out his desires changed? No, it did not. Even though the action was political, the motivation was still racist nonsense.
Before we return to the Danish cartoon case, let's consider one further twist.
There is a man who hates liberals - and i mean, he hates them with a passion - and his neighbourhood is just barely conservative (one more liberal vote would change the local government). One day a black man moves into his neighbourhood and announces he will be voting liberal. The first man, enraged by this, burns down the black man's home and shoots the black man dead. Now... this motivation is clearly political. But the action is not (and the goal is to prevent a liberal government from coming to power).
So you can have a political action without a political motivation, and you can have a non-political action with a political motivation.
Now let's consider the Danish cartoon case.
Do we have political actions? Yes. You listed several of them. Do we have non-political actions? Yes. (Despite your dishonest whitewashing of the situation, the facts are that there were violent riots and deaths - and i don't really see the relevance that it just so happened that the original few didn't happen to be among them... the fact remains that there was violence. Furthermore, those so-called "crank calls" were death threats and bomb threats. Those are not "crank calls", those are criminal offences (and if you don't agree, call two random offices downtown... ask the first if there's a Seymour Butts there, and tell the second there's a bomb in the building... and let's let the police decide).)
But as the examples show, it doesn't matter whether the actions were political or not. It also doesn't matter what the goals of those actions happened to be. The question remains: was the motivation political or religious?
i still can't see any rational explanation for a political motivation for getting angry at a comical depiction of Mohammed. i see a religious motivation. i see political actions being undertaken due to an underlying religious anger at the insulting depictions of Mohammed.
Certainly there were several political goals - one of which was the undermining of freedom of speech and freedom of expression... but why did those rioting Muslims want to undermine those things? What was the motivation? To me it seems clear. Freedom of expression weakens the apparent sanctity of their religion. In other words, they want to destroy freedom of expression because it threatens their religion. Motivation: religious.
And certainly some political groups did use the riots to their advantage... but does that mean the riots were politically motivated or does it mean that political groups opportunistically used religiously motivated riots to their own ends? Again, it seems clear to me. Those people that were on the streets rioting were not doing it for political reasons. Were they? Tell me what you think: if we pulled the average rioter aside and asked them, "Why are you rioting?" what do you think they would say? Would they say, "Because of the socio-political inequities that exist in Europe!" or, "Because the Prophet is holy and should not be mocked!" Well? What do you think?
To me, seems pretty obvious.
And if all of that doesn't make it obvious enough, this should put the nail in the coffin. If the motivation really was for political reasons, what was the goal? Apparently, it was the destruction of freedom of expression - if we pretend the motivation wasn't religious, then that would appear to be that the ultimate motivation was that freedom of political expression itself is in some way undesirable. Ok, fine. That would be a political motivation, and it seems to fit everything the protesters do and say. But... if that really is the underlying motivation... then... essentially... you have a bunch of people speaking out... against speaking out. Hm. Houston, we have a problem here. Because... if that's what's really going on, then these people who are apparently against freedom of expression - tens of thousands of protesters worldwide, and millions of vocal supporters - are ****** idiots. They're dumb as toast. Because they're against a political idea that they want (because it allows them to express and control their political agenda).
i have a problem with saying millions and millions of people are that stupid and mixed up. Yeah, sure, people may be stupid and mixed up... but their heads are not usually so completely far up their own asses that they're too stupid to recognize such a good thing while they're actually taking advantage of it (not to mention the leaders of this revolt would have to be that stupid, too, which is an even bigger stretch). i don't see it.
On the other hand, a religious motivation completely solves this paradox. They don't really care about their political rights. They're pissed off that their religion is not taken seriously. And everything follows simply and logically from that.
But hey, you know, maybe i don't know what i'm talking about. Maybe they really do have political motivations for this outrage. How can we be sure?
Well, why don't we let them speak for themselves?
Mr. Protester, tell us, what about this affair angers you the most? The abuse of freedom of expression, or the fact that Islam was insulted?
So, i'll put you down under religious rage then?
What about you, sir? Do you agree?
Ah, i see, the other guy wasn't quite specific enough about how this extermination is to take place.
Any comments from the group?
i see a pattern here.
Well it seems that the issue is the "insult" to Islam. Alright, but is this a political insult? Some kind of social disenfranchisement?
Hm, well blasphemy doesn't sound like a political concern to me.
Ladies, do you agree that this insult is religious in nature?
That appears to be a yes.
What about you, Miss? What political statement do you feel compelled to make by this incident?
Well, i'm torn between Clinton and Obama myself... what political office is Allah running for again?
Now people, Mr. Stirner here insists that this is about politics, so surely you must have some statements to make about some of the politicians involved. Anyone? Anyone has anything to say about Anders Fogh Rasmussen or Jacques Chirac (i guess Sarkozy now, eh)? Hey, are we for or against Socialdemokraterne?
Moses... Abraham... Jesus... i'm pretty sure those aren't political names.
Now you may balk and claim that i am being unfair and only cherry-picking the most extreme slogans and ignoring the ones that seem more politically oriented. You're right. ^_^ But so what? i am aware that more... civilized... protesters generally carried placards with one of three "political" messages. In essence, they were: "****** European imperialism," "Down with freedom of expression" and "Everyone who isn't offended by this is an ******". Sure they sound political-ish, but they're not. The publication of cartoons by a privately owned media company is in no way related to European imperialism, and anyone who was even remotely concerned about European imperialism would know this (and there are tons of more pressing things to protest about if that's really where your concern lies). i've already covered why the freedom of expression argument is lame. And if that last counts as a political message... no, i'm not even gonna grace that with a metaphor... it's too stupid.
So i say again... whence the political motivation? To me, it's plain as day religiously motivated. Just because the religious motivations led to political actions, and just because political groups opportunistically took advantage of the outrage to further their political agendas, the fact does not change... the underlying motivation, the thing that set it all off, and the real reason people are killing each other in the streets is, was and probably always will be... religion.
(Incidentally, i think this quote of yours needs to be highlighted to show you just how wrong-headed your methodology is. You see, you are not trying to understand what is really causing these protests. You are determined to believe that it is political in nature, and you are selectively highlighting certain facts and downplaying others in order to force the evidence to fit your belief. The cases of the "prank phone calls" and the "peaceful protesting" i mentioned above are two examples - in one you distort the nature of what really happened and in the other you focus on the few instances that support your beliefs and ignore the ones that done... both very, very bad things to do if you are serious about the truth. But nothing highlights how wrong-headed your approach is as well as... your own highlighting. ^_^ Now, this is exactly what you wrote, how you wrote it: "only when religious and and political groups and a number of...". Now, what if you were trying to argue that the motivation was religious? Would you have done this: "only when religious and and political groups and a number of..."? ^_^; You also... bizarrely... point out that the religious groups that filed protests are also political groups because they have no separation of church and state, and thus their protests are political. Huh? ^_^; But they're still religious groups right... so why can't their protests also be religious? Why bend over backward to desperately try to pin political motivations on these protests when they plainly have a religious basis, the protesters explicitly claim that their indignation is based on religion and political motivations just don't make sense (why in the hell would people in Lebanon give a crap about the social strata of Denmark!?!?)! ^_^; Ockham's razor, man. Use it. See what falls out.)
| MaxStirner wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | If you can find a political motivation in any of that [read complete posts above if needed], you'll have to spell it out, because i sure can't. All i see is a religious group attempting to control the lives of everyone in that group and out of it - which is pretty much the way it always is. [italics added] |
I'll do my best to spell it out: My claim, that protests against the cartoons (first) published in the danish "Jyllands-Posten", were and are politically motivated, is based on a number of facts:
- The cartoons were originally published in late Sept. 2005. Apart from a small (and peaceful) demonstration of about 3.000 to 8.000 persons (depending on source) in front of the newspaper offices as well as two crank calls threatening the cartoons' authors, not much can be recorded, either within Denmark or abroad, that could be interpreted as violent.
- The only other notable events that I am aware of were (a) a request by a number of ambassadors of Middle East nations requesting a meeting with Prime Minister Rasmussen (which was turned down) and (b) a complaint filed by a number of Muslim organizations with the danish police.
- In October and November a number of newspapers reprint the cartoons (or to be more exact, some of the cartoons.) Again, smaller, peaceful protests are organized and a number of complaints through diplomatic channels are lodged, but nothing else.
- Especially interesting were the cartoon reprints by the Egyptian El Fagr newspaper which failed to trigger any type of protest, either by government or religious organizations, or any impromptu "grass roots" protests.
- In early December, a rumor asserting (and later proved as untrue) that a 10.000 US$ reward had been offered for the deaths of the cartoonists, made its round through many western newspapers which blew this out of proportion. It was subsequently discovered that a Pakistani political party (Jamaat-e-Islami) had suggested that such reward could / should be offered by the (Pakistani) government.
- By the end of 2005, all types of complaints are lodged (mostly through diplomatic channels, incl. the UN) but again, the reaction "on the streets" is in general temperate.
- I find it indicative, that serious protests begin months later (in Jan and Feb 2006) only when religious and and political groups and a number of governments pick up the subject. Especially interesting is the fact that protests begin in those countries where such demonstrations are usually prohibited, unless of course the state or meaningful ruling political interests deem it opportune: Libya, Syria and Iran.
- Protests by Muslim organizations in Europe and a number of other more moderate nations with Muslim communities are, in comparison, small and peaceful.
Although the 2006 protests were, for the most part, instigated by religious organizations, it should be remembered that in many Middle Eastern countries, there is no or little separation of church and state and that most of these groups have paramount political interests, and occurrences such as these cartoons are simply a welcome tool to mobilize and radicalize their supporters, who are critical of the west generally. One could claim that these parties / organizations in Iran, Syria, Libya, Pakistan and even Iraq and Turkey were simply indignant at seeing their beliefs ridiculed and had no political motives, but that does seem a bit far-fetched and untypical. One could even argue that the original publication of the cartoons by a right-wing Danish paper with a notorious anti-immigration editorial line, may have had a political component, especially since a similar cartoon contest involving christian / catholic symbols and figures, was considered and then turned down, fearing it would be "deeply offensive to Christians".
In my opinion, the lack of protests concerning these cartoon until this theme was picked up by political interest groups, is more than indicative to "find[ing] a political motivation in any of that [protests]". It is certainly true that many Middle Eastern societies do not separate church and state as we in the west have come to doing (although the influence of the Church, especially in the U.S. but also in a number of European nations seems at times clearly visible, including the current presidential elections), it seems obvious to me that, as was and is usual, these political interests were the catalyst.
On a personal note: One of my better customers here in Frankfurt is an Iranian based software company and I have had the opportunity not only to get personally acquainted with many of my Iranian colleagues, but have visited their offices in Tehran. Although certainly subjective, I find time and time again that we tend not to differentiate sufficiently between political rhetoric coming out of Middle Eastern and Southwest Asian countries, and the usually much more moderate population. Certainly there are religious zealots very actively attempting to sow dissent in these areas, but even most of these use religion much more as a tool to attain their political goals and do not act simply out an earnest inner conviction. |
I'm quite glad that they did it again and didn't let the rioting muslims shut them up. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate muslims or the islam, but I think they're soooooo overreacting.
If the muslims would make funny cartoons of the pope, the (catholic) christians would maybe be like "hey, that's so not okay, don't do this, bad people." but I doubt they would burn flags and boycott eastern products.
Might be that I'm wrong there. I just don't like religious fanatics, no matter what religion they have. And often "religions" (I over-simplify here) annoy me with their whinyness. Does noone care about my feelings as an atheist? 
| Arnie wrote: |
Has anyone noticed the similarity of the topic starter's statements with "Billy Hill"'s signature quoting "PMK-Bear"? Could the (newly registered) TS possibly be one of those two? You guys are easily baited.
| Quote: | | i look at the title of this thread... and then i look at this*. |
That's what I was saying here. |
The ip addresses of Billy Hill and the topic starter do indeed match (same isp). Good catch!I don't really understand why it's unacceptable for a non-Muslim to create an image of Mohammad. I can very easily see how it would be dire sacrilege for a Muslim to do it... but for a non-believer??
For a non-believer, it is simply an image, it holds no meaning. Therefore its creation is not forbidden, as it doesn't represent an infraction upon their belief structure. It's empty and hollow. The dictates of a particular culture/religion do not hold sway over the actions and beliefs of those outside of its sphere of influence or subscription. Sure, it might not make the believers happy, but, it's not causing them any harm either.
Certainly, rioting over the actions of non-believers is an infraction upon the teachings of Mohammad, is it not?? Certainly the violence is a worse infraction than the creation of an image?? Right?
Wrong + Wrong =/= Right
Indignation may be warranted, but not violence.
That is very well put Ankhanu.
Indi, your post is exactly what I had wanted to say but could not put into words myself.
| catscratches wrote: |
| Indi, your post is exactly what I had wanted to say but could not put into words myself. |
It boggles my mind that people are actually arguing in support of the Muslim indignation and suggesting that the Danish newspapers were wrong to publish the cartoons. And it doesn't even matter that they weren't even insulting - even if they were, Denmark is not a totalitarian state (ironically like all modern Muslim states are), and there is no rational reason for a free country to make being an ass illegal.
Let's consider the worst case scenario, and pretend that Jyllands-Posten just published bunch of cartoons making fun of Mohammed... for the hell of it. Well, so what if they did? Should it be possible to sue? Should they be fined? Should the editors be jailed? And even if they should not be punished, should they have been prevented (if it was possible)?
Much of the noise Muslim groups are making (once we ignore the really stupid stuff) centres around their claim that this constitutes hate-speech. Does it? Let's think about that.
If i said: "Moses was a doody head," is that hate-speech? Of course not. -_- Is it polite? No. But that doesn't make it morally wrong. And it certainly doesn't make it dangerous. Who suffers directly or indirectly by my calling Moses a doody head? Am i encouraging that suffering? Condoning it? If i said: "Moses is a doody head, but i like Jews," is there anything contradictory in that? No. So clearly making fun of a religious icon is not hate speech.
What if i said: "Jews are doody heads," is that hate-speech? Well this one's a little bit trickier, but let's apply the same test. If i said: "Jews are doody heads, but i don't think they should be harassed or hurt in any way," am i being contradictory? No, not at all. Calling Jews doody heads is rude and more than a little ignorant, but it is not hate-speech.
But what if i said: "Jews should be rounded up and shipped out of the country on leaky boats"? Is that hate-speech? Same test: "Jews should be rounded up and shipped out of the country on leaky boats, but i don't think Jews should be harassed or hurt in any way," is that contradictory? Well, yes. Yes, it is. That is hate-speech. Hate-speech is speech that directly encourages harm to a group or person. Making fun may be a component of hate-speech, but it is not hate-speech in and of itself.
So let's review. Even if Jyllands-Posten had said: "Mohammed is a jerk." (which they did not)... even if Jyllands-Posten had said: "Muslims are jerks." (whcih they did not)... that is still not hate-speech. Rude? Certainly. Ignorant? Most likely. Dangerous? Hardly. Hate-speech? Not in the least. If Jyllands-Posten had said: "Muslims should be killed." (which they obviously did not), that would have been hate speech. (And of course, what Jyllands-Posten really said was primarily "we should not be afraid to criticize Islam". Individual cartoons had different messages, but they were mostly concern about how Islam is being hijacked by extremists and terrorists. How anyone can rationally consider that insulting, let alone hate-speech (!), boggles my mind.)
i don't know how people can seriously defend the kind of censorship Muslims are demanding with a straight face. They are not demanding that hate-speech should be made illegal - it already is - they are demanding that it be illegal to be rude!!! It's absurd what they are demanding! And even more absurd is the fact that they are demanding that it be illegal to say "Mohammed is a doody head" even while they chant "Jyllands-Posten/Denmark/Europe is a bunch of doody heads"!!!
The whole thing is so bloody stupid it makes me cry.Then read Bondings' post above and stop snapping at the bait. You could've done that a long time ago, instead of... | Bikerman wrote: |
| My comments were not uniquely directed at bigmo420, they apply to several posters. |
| Indi wrote: |
| i do not know who "Billy Hill" is, and that thread does not look like one i want to be involved in. |
By the way... | Quote: |
| they are demanding that it be illegal to be rude!!! |
We've got some of those here ourselves... | Arnie wrote: |
Then read Bondings' post above and stop snapping at the bait. You could've done that a long time ago, instead of... | Bikerman wrote: | | My comments were not uniquely directed at bigmo420, they apply to several posters. |
| Indi wrote: | | i do not know who "Billy Hill" is, and that thread does not look like one i want to be involved in. |
By the way... | Quote: | | they are demanding that it be illegal to be rude!!! |
We've got some of those here ourselves... |
i still don't know - or care - who "Billy Hill" is. i also don't know - or care - why you or Bondings think he is so important.
The questions raised in this thread are valid questions - and unlike most of the threads in this forum, they are valid questions in both philosophy and religion. If you don't want to talk about them because you don't like the person who started the thread and/or you think it was started rudely... then fine. Don't talk about them. Cheerio.
But we're having a discussion about the implications of free speech and the relationship to religious beliefs - questions raised by the publication of those cartoons and the surrounding protests. i don't think anyone else here is interested in your little witch-hunt, or whoever it is you are after - i think they're all interested in those (very valid) issues. If you have something relevant to say regarding those questions, then by all means feel free to join in the discussion. But if all you are interested in doing is insulting people engaging in the discussion without a clue of what is really going on, perhaps there are other threads where you can be more productive and less antagonistic and offensive.I don't think he's important, I'm trying to make you stop crying. But if you insist... have fun.
OI think its exaggeration to say "Freedom of Speech", while speech is not limited to say something but even drawings and photography are freedom of speech.
OK, what about if someone draw the late Pop John Paul II, specially in an awkward way, making something bad. I think they would make worser riots.
| daljirman wrote: |
| OK, what about if someone draw the late Pop John Paul II, specially in an awkward way, making something bad. I think they would make worser riots. |
I'm quite certain that such images have been published...Free speech is the most important thing to human development, during the european dark ages scientific development was non existent, in muslim countries however progress was made in medicines, philosophy, astronomy etc.
After the dark ages in the EU the grip of the church declined and people were more and more able to say what they wanted so we made progress, we rediscovered ancient greek writings because of the muslims.
From then free speech became more and more important, and look where did that brought us?
Instant data communication
Modern medicine
Fast travel
We discovered DNA
Invented microwaves
And the list goes on and on... >
What did religion bring us? NOTHING? We weren't discussing stuff on the internet right now on this forum were it for religious fanatics.
Yeah, and our points would probably be in the minus. But thankfully there are also anti-anti-homosexual fanatics. Seems like just another religion. | Arnie wrote: |
| I don't think he's important, I'm trying to make you stop crying. But if you insist... have fun. |
i appreciate your concern, but given that i weep at the stupidity of millions and millions of protesters, i'm not clear on how hearing about "Billy Hill" is supposed to make me feel better.
| Ankhanu wrote: |
| daljirman wrote: | | OK, what about if someone draw the late Pop John Paul II, specially in an awkward way, making something bad. I think they would make worser riots. |
I'm quite certain that such images have been published... |
Didn't someone (*cough*bikerman*cough* ^_^; ) post a video of one of the popes, parodying some ceremony of theirs as a Star Wars Galactic Empire ceremony? It might have been Benedict, i can't recall - but i have certainly seen pictures comparing JP2 with Emperor Palpantine. And then, of course, there is the song "Pope Raper"....
As far as i'm concerned this is not simply an issue of "Muslims are crazier than non-Muslims". Do they have the right to be angry at someone mocking Mohammed? Do they have the right to protest? Do they have the right to punish the mockers? Do they have the right to pass laws preventing people from mocking Mohammed?
In my mind, the answers are: Yes. Yes. No. No.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
Free speech is the most important thing to human development, during the european dark ages scientific development was non existent, in muslim countries however progress was made in medicines, philosophy, astronomy etc.
After the dark ages in the EU the grip of the church declined and people were more and more able to say what they wanted so we made progress, we rediscovered ancient greek writings because of the muslims.
From then free speech became more and more important, and look where did that brought us?
Instant data communication
Modern medicine
Fast travel
We discovered DNA
Invented microwaves
And the list goes on and on... >
What did religion bring us? NOTHING? We weren't discussing stuff on the internet right now on this forum were it for religious fanatics. |