View Full Version : Should Caricatures of Mohammod be allowed?
Strike For The South
04-06-2006, 03:30
Should they be? I say yes they should. IMO its a true test of free speech. I also belive the west has a horrible double standard. Crosses have been put in urine Jesus been diflied and barley a tear was shed. Then the cartoons come out (of the prophet) and all of sudden its OH NOES! We seem to allow our princples to be bended and broken when they are truly tested. We cant allow this to happen. As a westener I dont have to accept anything. Merly tolerate it.
Rodion Romanovich
04-06-2006, 09:00
The caricatures in Jyllandsposten were offensive to muslim people, not muslim religion, by indirectly repeating the immensely offensive and unfortunately all too common form of harassment where it's indicated that all muslims would be terrorists. However jokes about the actual religion that joke about the religion itself is comparable to joking about Jesus. As long as you don't indicate by the joke that you think all followers of the religion are criminals (and therefore indirectly saying they should be killed, because it's some people's policy that all terrorists should be killed), or by directly saying they should get killed. It's hate speech according to law, but then again - when did law matter for how individual cases are treated?
no, and im not a muslim :2thumbsup:
as far as i can tell, the idea of not picturing mohammod is central to the muslim faith, and can be very offensive, unlike carictures of jesus, who christians can picture, i also think that due to the current political situation around the world, it is stupid for carictures to be made of mohammod as they only cause trouble :dizzy2:
free speech should be used responsibly....
In general I'd say 'yes'. Simply because most of us live in a free country with freedom of expression.
Clearly, the recently released cartoons were in poor taste and meant to offend (in one way or the other). They were not funny (or at least one or two weren't). One has to be careful and often put 'sense' before 'freedom' when publishing something controversial. In light of recent developments it would be well advised not to pour additional oil into the fire.
Quid
Ja'chyra
04-06-2006, 10:35
Of course they should, you only thing you shouldn't make jokes about is my mum.:inquisitive:
Oh, STFS, I know you're foreign and all that but damn your spelling is terrible. Now that I've said that you know I'm bound to have made a mistake in this post. :embarassed: :laugh4:
Banquo's Ghost
04-06-2006, 10:50
Oh, STFS, I know you're foreign and all that but damn your spelling is terrible. Now that I've said that you know I'm bound to have made a mistake in this post. :embarassed: :laugh4:
Indeed, when I read the title I thought it was about a new mod for MTW :laugh4:
Avicenna
04-06-2006, 10:59
no, and im not a muslim :2thumbsup:
as far as i can tell, the idea of not picturing mohammod is central to the muslim faith, and can be very offensive, unlike carictures of jesus, who christians can picture, i also think that due to the current political situation around the world, it is stupid for carictures to be made of mohammod as they only cause trouble :dizzy2:
free speech should be used responsibly....
I'd have to agree. Just because you have free speech doesn't mean you should insult other countries about it. Especially when they have a lot of oil that they could just not sell to you.
Sjakihata
04-06-2006, 11:36
It is only blasmephy to depict Mohammed if you are a muslim
Cronos Impera
04-06-2006, 11:59
Oh damn, depicting caricatures of Mohamed is irresponsible. Mohamed wasn't the mentor of Al Quaeda bombings, it was Ossama Bin Laden. Linking Ossama to Mohamed is as offensive to the muslims as the carricature of Mihai Viteazul' decapitated head would be to the Romanian people. It is blashemious and the carricaturists are indirectly attacking more than a billion people who love Mohamed as much as they love their mother.
It is only blasmephy to depict Mohammed if you are a muslim
but its still inconsiderate to do it if your not muslim....
Watchman
04-06-2006, 12:19
"No and not a Muslim" here. Especially after the whole J-posten mess the whole issue is an open wound. Any more of the same will be rubbing salt into it, and bound to produce a backlash.
"Freedom of speech" is a funny principle that should be kept in company of principles like "prudence" and "restraint". If you know a large segment of the whole world is going to go completely nuts over it, don't do it. Simple as that.
Christians long ago settled down enough to not take these things too seriously and go ballistic, at least most of the time. Muslims are still working on it, and are running on rather worn and tense nerves due to other issues already (a painful cultural-shift-in-progress never did much good for anyone's patience), so what's the point in provoking them ? It's not going to make them any more open-minded or progressive or suchlike, just ornery.
:inquisitive:
And a pox on those opportunistic troublemaking Imams and Saudi authorities for "sexing up" their case and fanning the flames too. I dislike that sort of enterpreneurship to a considerable degree.
Kanamori
04-06-2006, 12:25
Nobody should be forced to cater to the sensibilities of others when it comes to exchanging ideas, especially ones that have political meaning. People are polite at their own whim, and they should certainly not be forced by the government to quiet themselves.
Europe has a nasty double standard with a certain other group though.:book:
Watchman
04-06-2006, 12:26
Laws step in where people's own judgement fails. That's what they're for.
lancelot
04-06-2006, 12:29
no, and im not a muslim :2thumbsup:
as far as i can tell, the idea of not picturing mohammod is central to the muslim faith, and can be very offensive, unlike carictures of jesus, who christians can picture, i also think that due to the current political situation around the world, it is stupid for carictures to be made of mohammod as they only cause trouble :dizzy2:
free speech should be used responsibly....
If there has been no pictures of mohammod, are not all these supposed pictures of said person the interpretation of people thinking that the picture is of mohammod?
So in theory, all these pictures could be of any old bloke?
And political situation be damned, if people can prostest on the streets of london with banners with such slogans as 'behead those who offend islam' and other such pleasantries...a couple of stupid cartoons for the religious extreme to make a fuss over is the least of socieites worries.
Watchman
04-06-2006, 12:46
If there has been no pictures of mohammod, are not all these supposed pictures of said person the interpretation of people thinking that the picture is of mohammod?
So in theory, all these pictures could be of any old bloke?Semantics. The issue here is emotions. Such sophistry is entirely useless in the context.
And political situation be damned, if people can prostest on the streets of london with banners with such slogans as 'behead those who offend islam' and other such pleasantries...a couple of stupid cartoons for the religious extreme to make a fuss over is the least of socieites worries.Well, obviously. Doesn't make it any less of a bad idea to go publicizing stuff that gets those merry folks onto the street in the first place without good reasons, though.
If you have a nasty infected wound, poking at it with a stick isn't going to help it get better.
And striking sparks just for fun in a gunpowder magazine isn't a really great idea either.
And political situation be damned, if people can prostest on the streets of london with banners with such slogans as 'behead those who offend islam' and other such pleasantries...a couple of stupid cartoons for the religious extreme to make a fuss over is the least of socieites worries.
the banners were wrong --> the product of radical muslim groups and mass media hype inflaming the situation out of proportion :shame:
EDIT: Watchman, what does sophistry mean pls?
Watchman
04-06-2006, 13:45
I'm not quite sure I actually spelled the word right, but the concept would basically mean something (overly) sophisticated and cultivated. In this case, what amounts to so much supposedly clever rhetorics and strikes even me - who have no direct stake in the issue, being firmly irreligious - as transparent and fake.
Were I a devout Muslim, particularly of the brand to take offense of some gwailo (yes, I know that's a Chinese term) doodling caricatures of the Prophet, odds are I'd be mightily pissed. Not in the least at the sheer contemptuous arrogance of it, since it's really the verbal equivalent of haughtily waving off a crude peasant from one's esteemed presence.
Yes, you should be able to do so within the law. That doesn't mean that you should do it.
I'm allowed to run naked in a blizzard, but should I do it? I'm allowed to have a really bad taste, but should I have it?
In democracies nothing is beyond satire, or at least it shouldn't be. It is up to the individual to determine if it should be personally supported or not.
So while I'm against the two that are truly offensive I will never vote for anything that removes the right to make them.
And if it is all of the 12 caricatures that are offensive so that the reults are what we have seen, then I think we just have to accept that our worlds are not compatible. 'We' have depicted Muhammed many times before, even nude in an old movie. No outrage. Damn, even the US SC building has him depicted.
Watchman
04-06-2006, 13:57
That would be an indication of rising tensions, methinks. In which case the whole caricature thing is meaningless by itself and merely a sign of the real troubles.
Which aren't really that hard to think of.
That would be an indication of rising tensions, methinks. In which case the whole caricature thing is meaningless by itself and merely a sign of the real troubles.
Which aren't really that hard to think of.
Of course it is... The images just made for a great incitement for trouble. In fact it hardly gets any better. But the reasons were not the images themselves. And those who believe an apology from our PM would have helped... Well look at Norway.
Sjakihata
04-06-2006, 15:12
but its still inconsiderate to do it if your not muslim....
yes, but it is inconsiderate to do many things, that are still allowed. For example, it is inconsiderate to boycot danish goods, but it is still allowed.
Law is (and rightly so) based on logos, not feelings (in most of the cases)
yesdachi
04-06-2006, 15:20
Picking on a volatile cultures spiritual leader is going to elicit a violent reaction from the extremists and probably a mild reaction from the mainstream but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done and tolerated by others. A depiction of Mohammad in a derogatory way should be seen as an offence to Muslims but a reasonable reaction would be to explain that you are upset about it, explain why your upset about it and ask that it not me done again, especially for a first time offence in many years. It was certainly not known to me that it was not permitted by the religion to depict him in a… well anywhere.
The culture of other societies should be respected. That’s a double edged sword, if you want your culture respected you must respect others culture as well. In most western societies free speech and satire are commonly accepted parts of our culture. A caricature of Mohammad is clearly an accepted piece of satire in western culture and if found offensive should be protested. But not by creating hundreds of pieces of “art” that are paraded thru the streets with thousands or protesters that depicts westerners getting decapitated accompanied by words of damnation to the entire culture.
If you want respect, give it. The knee-jerk reaction to kill everyone that offends you is the reason for the caricatures in the first place. Freedom, especially freedom of speech is practically the foundation of our society and anyone that cow-tows down to hypocrites demanding censorship of our freedoms should consider having their clitoris chopped off and start wearing a vial.
Watchman
04-06-2006, 15:29
"We provoke them because they react excessively, therefore they react excessively." What a brilliant circular pissing contest, if I may be so blunt.
Reenk Roink
04-06-2006, 20:30
No...
Words and press, are of upmost importance, and therefore, must be used responsibly.
I give, as an example, the band Soundgarden's song, "Jesus Christ Pose." Even though the song was written before the whole Seattle thing boiled over, and Soundgarden got huge, simply the song's title caused an uproar. Despite the fact that it contained nothing blasphemous in the lyrics, and the intent behind the song was to criticize the use of the image of Jesus for fame, advertising, and other wrong uses (the band made many statements trying to clarify this, and Chris Cornell himself wrote the lyrics to chastise Perry Farrell's "act" on stage) the band received numerous death threats, there were protests outside concerts, and MTV banned the video.
This kind of reaction is to be expected, as such a sensitive topic is touched (I myself, though loving Soundgarden, say that they should have picked a better title). And this case is one without malice intent. When you have initial printings of the cartoons, followed by reprintings, and strong manipulation of some extremists (fake cartoons, starting riots, turning the anger at Denmark to America), all hell breaks loose...
no, and im not a muslim :2thumbsup:
as far as i can tell, the idea of not picturing mohammod is central to the muslim faith, and can be very offensive, unlike carictures of jesus, who christians can picture, i also think that due to the current political situation around the world, it is stupid for carictures to be made of mohammod as they only cause trouble :dizzy2:
free speech should be used responsibly....
I agree with Scury:juggle2:
Kagemusha
04-06-2006, 21:11
Yes.I think it should be allowed,but like Kraxis sayed its up to the people that will they actually do those or not.:bow:
Allowed ? By Who? Who will decide what to publish, draw, and write? No, victory against censure was a great victory. If we start to bother about all sensibilities, opinions and superstitions, life will be difficult for freedom of speech.:wall:
Louis VI the Fat
04-07-2006, 20:42
Allowed ? By Who? Who will decide what to publish, draw, and write? If we start to bother about all sensibilities, opinions and superstitions, life will be difficult for freedom of speech.:wall:Exactly! I'm not going to keep track of each and every superstition somebody somewhere on this planet has.
I supposedly will burn in hell for working on fridays, and on saturdays, and on sundays. On all other days of the week too, I guess. I deeply offend millions by eating cows, by wearing white clothes, by shaving my facial hair. By covering my head or by not covering it, by worshipping pink rabbits by full moons on wednesdays or by not worshipping them.
I may or may not live my life in accordance to the superstitious believes of others, and I may know about them or not. What I will certainly not do, is let myself be terrorized into submission to one particular set of beliefs over another based on the amout of violence people are prepared to use:
"Freedom of speech" is a funny principle that should be kept in company of principles like "prudence" and "restraint". If you know a large segment of the whole world is going to go completely nuts over it, don't do it. Simple as that.Prudent is, to assert freedom and tolerance in the face of intolerance.
You kno I can understand if they don't like cartoons of Mohammed. But they don't hvae the right from to keep other from making cartoons fromt things they don't believe in. I mean if I'm a fan or of politician (I know you should be crazy to do that but it's just an example) I can't demand that from now on they shouldn't make any cartoons of him. Don't like the cartoons, okay. But feeling offended? Jeez it's a cartoon! A joke!
Hell yes you should be able to draw a cartoon of a religous figure. Plain and simple freedom of speech/press, we can't make some exceptions all must be free to draw what they like, even if that be Barney with overly sized genitals. Seriously earth to the middle east, its a cartoon, i'm sure israel has to piss you off more just existing then a cartoon. I personally will not be forced into compliance by some terrorist who was offended by something penciled onto a piece of paper.
If anything that fact that they would react violently is a good enough reason to make the cartoon. Exposing a threat to our safety should be a priority to newspapers and if it takes a cartoon and a major over reaction to show it then so be it. Considering it is only wrong to draw mohammed if you are islamic I see nothing wrong with sketching something that could be mohammed on a piece of paper. I don't see that anyone has mentioned it here, but most of those sketches were done by muslim shakes (or whatever their called) to purposely elicit a violent reaction in their countries. So yes we should allow pictures of Mohammed to be drawn because it is 100% alright for the religious leaders of Islam to draw them. Oh and look :balloon2: I just drew a picture of Mohammed.
Marcellus
04-08-2006, 15:07
Yes, they should be allowed. Things should not be banned simply because someone else doesn't particlarly like it. We should have freedom of expression. However, that does not mean people should necessarily use it at every opportunity. The cartoons in the danish newspaper were offensive to muslim people, by implying that all muslims are terrorists. They should not have been published (or republishd, once it was clear how offensive they were). That does not mean that they should not be allowed to be published, it just means that I think that it is a bad idea. As for caricatures of Muhammed in general, they should be published only if they really benefit discussion. Otherwise they should be avoided - they clearly upset a lot of people, so there is no point of publishing them if they bring no benefit to others.
“by implying that all muslims are terrorists.” Well, for what I know, the newspapers said it was to explain the use of Religion to cover terrorism.
And even if it was a general attack against all Muslims, it could be print and re-print. The freedom of speech isn’t link to the degree of violence. 1936: A cartoon of a English Newspaper (or French, US etc) offended Germany. 50 millions of Germans are offended by the caricature of the Fuhrer. Should the drawing be withdraw and apologies given? According to you, yes…
A.Saturnus
04-08-2006, 20:15
If Freedom of Speech must bow to religious feelings then 'freedom' in it is a misnomer.
Marcellus
04-08-2006, 23:39
If Freedom of Speech must bow to religious feelings then 'freedom' in it is a misnomer.
It doesn't have to bow to religious feelings at all. If you want to publish something (as long as it isn't encouraging others to commit crimes), then go ahead. The law certainly shouldn't stop you. I was simply pointing out that religious feelings are there, so it would not be a good idea to offend them if it brings little benefit to people. I just don't believe that any benefit caused by the publishing of the danish cartoons outweighs the offense it caused.
“by implying that all muslims are terrorists.” Well, for what I know, the newspapers said it was to explain the use of Religion to cover terrorism.
That may have been what they intended the cartoon to mean, but they should have thought more about what impression it would give to a muslim person who saw a key person of their religion depicted as a terrorist. The implication, even if not intended, is that all those who follow him are terrorists.
And even if it was a general attack against all Muslims, it could be print and re-print. The freedom of speech isn’t link to the degree of violence.
People should be able to reprint it if they want. But seeing the upset it has caused, I think it was a bad decision.
1936: A cartoon of a English Newspaper (or French, US etc) offended Germany. 50 millions of Germans are offended by the caricature of the Fuhrer. Should the drawing be withdraw and apologies given? According to you, yes…
No. Hitler's policies were evil and anything ridiculing him brings benefit to people by highlighting his evil. The same can not be said of the entire of the muslim religion.
No. Hitler's policies were evil and anything ridiculing him brings benefit to people by highlighting his evil. The same can not be said of the entire of the muslim religion.
That wasn't know at the time... There were pointers, but nothing had yet happened that really could be considered evil in the day (perhaps now though).
So the situation would not be that different.
Marcellus
04-09-2006, 00:02
That wasn't know at the time... There were pointers, but nothing had yet happened that really could be considered evil in the day (perhaps now though).
So the situation would not be that different.
Hitler introduced anti-semitic laws and policies long before he initiated the Holocaust. He wouldn't have seemed as evil as he seems now, but he was showing signs that he was a very unpleasant man.
Hitler introduced anti-semitic laws and policies long before he initiated the Holocaust. He wouldn't have seemed as evil as he seems now, but he was showing signs that he was a very unpleasant man.
I doubt anyone will argue with you over that. But at that time it seemed as if he was trying to kick out the Jews rather than kill them. And sadly the world wasn't being particularly worried about that, since, sadly, many people felt Hitler was on to something. Yes, Europe was pretty anti-semetic.
The point is that the position wasn't all that different, not that I'm saying that in a few years time we will see Islam go on a rampage killing 'undesireables'.
Marcellus
04-09-2006, 00:42
I doubt anyone will argue with you over that. But at that time it seemed as if he was trying to kick out the Jews rather than kill them. And sadly the world wasn't being particularly worried about that, since, sadly, many people felt Hitler was on to something. Yes, Europe was pretty anti-semetic.
The point is that the position wasn't all that different, not that I'm saying that in a few years time we will see Islam go on a rampage killing 'undesireables'.
And there were those who recognised the evil of anti-semitism and Hitler's policies and who mocked Hitler through caricatures to try to highlight that evil. A caricature/attack on Hitler is an attack on one man and his policies. The cartoon implied that the billion or so followers of Islam are all terrorists. I don't think that the two can be compared.
And there were those who recognised the evil of anti-semitism and Hitler's policies and who mocked Hitler through caricatures to try to highlight that evil. A caricature/attack on Hitler is an attack on one man and his policies. The cartoon implied that the billion or so followers of Islam are all terrorists. I don't think that the two can be compared.
No it implied that certain elements within Islam is putting the bomb in the turban of the Prophet.
And there were those who recognised the evil of anti-semitism and Hitler's policies and who mocked Hitler through caricatures to try to highlight that evil. A caricature/attack on Hitler is an attack on one man and his policies. The cartoon implied that the billion or so followers of Islam are all terrorists. I don't think that the two can be compared.
That cartoon was directed at terrorists. Who are using Mohammed and his teachings to mask their evil. Hitler cartoons and that Mohammed cartoon were both directed attacks at something that was evil. They certainly didnt mean to call all muslims terrorists, but it is art so interpret it as you will.
InsaneApache
04-09-2006, 16:37
Any religion, creed or philosophy that sets up itself to determine peoples attitudes, ideas and behaviour should be challenged. To roll over and allow them to steamroller their ideas without taking them to task is a betrayal of the enlightenment.
To limit freedom of speech because what you have to say may upset someone, is the first rung on the ladder to totalianarism. Religious or political.
A.Saturnus
04-09-2006, 18:34
It doesn't have to bow to religious feelings at all. If you want to publish something (as long as it isn't encouraging others to commit crimes), then go ahead. The law certainly shouldn't stop you. I was simply pointing out that religious feelings are there, so it would not be a good idea to offend them if it brings little benefit to people. I just don't believe that any benefit caused by the publishing of the danish cartoons outweighs the offense it caused.
That's what this thread is about. That it should be legal, not that it's wise or kind to do so. Freedom of speech means also that you're allowed to say what you should not say. I don't agree with what they say, I only agree with their right to do so.
Harald Den BlåToth
04-10-2006, 03:56
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,druck-398853,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-399263,00.html
http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2006-02-06td.html
that would be enough...
http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2006-02-06td.html
That is pretty aggressive... I'm not sure it comments forthe sake of its own opinion or because it simply doesn't like whoever is in power.
Marcellus
04-10-2006, 21:22
That's what this thread is about. That it should be legal, not that it's wise or kind to do so. Freedom of speech means also that you're allowed to say what you should not say. I don't agree with what they say, I only agree with their right to do so.
I know, and I would agree that making caricatures of anyone should not be banned, no matter how much upset they cause. I was simply pointing out that in some cases it may be unwise.
That cartoon was directed at terrorists. Who are using Mohammed and his teachings to mask their evil. Hitler cartoons and that Mohammed cartoon were both directed attacks at something that was evil. They certainly didnt mean to call all muslims terrorists, but it is art so interpret it as you will.
I have no doubt that is what the cartoon drawers wanted the cartoon to represent. However I feel that the meaning of the cartoon was not clear enough to prevent large numbers of muslims drawing the conclusion that it was aimed at the religion of Islam as a whole.
rory_20_uk
04-10-2006, 21:52
So, these Muslims are unable to seek clarification on a point, they just went right ahead and made death threats. Not very civilised.
I do not see why everyone's actions needs to ensure that the most easily iratable of society are never offended: must I never eat meat in case a Veggie takes offence?
~:smoking:
Reenk Roink
04-10-2006, 22:13
So, these Muslims are unable to seek clarification on a point, they just went right ahead and made death threats. Not very civilised.
I do not see why everyone's actions needs to ensure that the most easily iratable of society are never offended: must I never eat meat in case a Veggie takes offence?
~:smoking:
Quite a broad brush you're using there...
Only a handful of Muslims made death threats, protested violently, burned buildings, and overturned cars out of the tens of millions that protested peacefully.
And those rogue reactions are to be expected as I showed before in my example:
(https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1111202&postcount=24)
As for the vegetarian analogy, I'm afraid the cartoons are on a completely different level. Your analogy compares to not shaving and a Muslim takes offense...
rory_20_uk
04-10-2006, 22:25
Fair enough. But all didn't bother with clarification as to the meaning from the authors, instead going out and protesting instead. Sure, the authors might have said "yeah, we hate you all - yer all bombers" but then I think far fewer would find the Muslim reaction OTT.
~:smoking:
Marcellus
04-10-2006, 23:46
I completely agree with you when you say that the reaction from some parts of the muslim world was way over the top.
yesdachi
04-11-2006, 02:20
Quite a broad brush you're using there...
Only a handful of Muslims made death threats, protested violently, burned buildings, and overturned cars out of the tens of millions that protested peacefully.
And those rogue reactions are to be expected as I showed before in my example:
(https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1111202&postcount=24)
As for the vegetarian analogy, I'm afraid the cartoons are on a completely different level. Your analogy compares to not shaving and a Muslim takes offense...
There were a lot more than a handful.:rolleyes:
Although poorly named from a marketing perspective the Soundgarden song is a perfect example of using your freedom of speech and the extremists freaking out about it. MTV had every right to pull the video, but no one has the right to stop Soundgarden from making it. It’s the same rights that allowed them to make the song allows people to protest against it.
I’d say it is a good thing for us to be shook up every now and then to remind us just what freedoms we have and it should remind us what our reactions should be. If you don’t like a piece of art or song or someone’s potato chip shaped like the pope then don’t look at it or listen to it, then thank your forefathers (or the US~D) for fighting so you have the choice to listen or look at something else.
The response should be appropriate to the situation. And if the response is too far over the top I don’t have a problem making a civilized attempt to help others understand but I also don’t have a problem letting a bullet or a daisy cutter speak to those who only understand violence. Don’t threaten out freedoms or be prepared for an appropriate response.
Reenk Roink
04-11-2006, 02:39
There were a lot more than a handful.:rolleyes:
Truly now? Pray, do tell...
There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Tens of millions all around the world protested the cartoons. Most of these protests were peaceful. I would say, that those involved in violent acts during the protests made up less than 1% of the total protesters. In the thousands to tens of thousands.
The response should be appropriate to the situation. And if the response is too far over the top I don’t have a problem making a civilized attempt to help others understand...
Agreed...
...but I also don’t have a problem letting a bullet or a daisy cutter speak to those who only understand violence.
How appropriate...
Still please do go and speak to those people with a bullet or a daisy cutter... I long to see the result of the mutual violence...
Very nice of you to stereotype Muslims as only being able to understand violence too...
Don’t threaten out freedoms or be prepared for an appropriate response.
Heh...I immediately drew parallels with that statement to those signs reading: "Behead those who slander our Prophet"
Truly now? Pray, do tell...
There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Tens of millions all around the world protested the cartoons. Most of these protests were peaceful. I would say, that those involved in violent acts during the protests made up less than 1% of the total protesters. In the thousands to tens of thousands.
Very well, since it has come to this.
Part of the same many protesters have decided on their own to boykott Danish produce, despite the fact that the companies involved have had no involvement with the paper or even the government (as if that would have had any impact on the situation).
"Let's hit Denmark!" that line of thought is what went on.
So who are now generalizing?
And no, in all there have been far less than 10 million protesters. We are talking about perhaps 2 million of which 1.5 would come from Pakistan and Indonesia alone.
Reenk Roink
04-11-2006, 03:31
Very well, since it has come to this.
Part of the same many protesters have decided on their own to boykott Danish produce, despite the fact that the companies involved have had no involvement with the paper or even the government (as if that would have had any impact on the situation).
"Let's hit Denmark!" that line of thought is what went on.
So who are now generalizing?
And no, in all there have been far less than 10 million protesters. We are talking about perhaps 2 million of which 1.5 would come from Pakistan and Indonesia alone.
Both sides are generalizing...However, much has already been said about the Muslim side...
While I do agree the the boycott of everything Danish was not well thought out at all and definitely misplaced, rationalizations by the protesters to boycott the entire country could be made as the government refused to apologize and most of the Danish people supported JP's publishing of the cartoons.
I say 10+ million because in proportion to the 1.6 billion Muslims, that is still less than 1% of the entire population. I do not doubt that such numbers could have been brought out, especially due to the seriousness in Muslim eyes, and the drawn out nature of these protests.
I heard in the news that the recent demonstrations and riots in France are drawing crowds of 1 million...of a nation with 60-61 million people (according to the CIA factbook estimate of the July 2006 population).
Kanamori
04-11-2006, 05:57
The Danish government cannot apologize for something it did not do. To issue an apology would require that they did something in the first place. Any government could certainly be condemned if it issued a statement like the one the newspaper did. Or maybe if their President said another country "must be wiped off the map."
Absolutely not.
Some things in life are sacred and should not be defiled by sick depraved cartoonists, or anyone else for that matter.
No caricatures or defilement of sacred matters should be allowed.
Thankfully at least the Muslims are bold enough to not tolerate that crap being done to their religion. :2thumbsup:
The Danish government cannot apologize for something it did not do. To issue an apology would require that they did something in the first place. Any government could certainly be condemned if it issued a statement like the one the newspaper did. Or maybe if their President said another country "must be wiped off the map."
Furthermore... It wouldn't have helped in any way.
Look at Norway. They came begging on their knees for forgiveness. What happened? Norway was lumped right into it next to Denmark.
Anything short of a selfdetonated nuclear blast in the heart of Copenhagen would have satisfied them.
rory_20_uk
04-11-2006, 11:59
"Sacred things"... sacred to who? How many need to find it sacred? Are Nazis alowed to have their things sacred, or only the "deserving" groups that you decide. Is GWB allowed to say any criticism of him is not allowed as he is sacred? Is the KKK going to be sacred?
Truely a stupid statement.
~:smoking:
yesdachi
04-11-2006, 14:05
Perhaps we could agree to say it was a “relative” handful than, but still you underplay the severity of the amount of violent protesters by calling them “only a handful”. A couple million protestors armed with minds filled with violence is a really really bad thing, I don’t think it took 2 million people to plan the 9/11 attacks or any of the hundreds of other smaller scale attacks we hear about almost every day. Perhaps the other 1.58 billion “peace loving” Muslims could help these misguided “handful” learn a little tolerance and understanding of other cultures.
Truly now? Pray, do tell...
There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Tens of millions all around the world protested the cartoons. Most of these protests were peaceful. I would say, that those involved in violent acts during the protests made up less than 1% of the total protesters. In the thousands to tens of thousands.
When I said “letting a bullet or a daisy cutter speak to those who only understand violence.” I am speaking about the violent protestors and terrorists, not ALL Muslims.
How appropriate...
Still please do go and speak to those people with a bullet or a daisy cutter... I long to see the result of the mutual violence...
Very nice of you to stereotype Muslims as only being able to understand violence too...
Wanting to behead anyone who slanders their prophet is hardly an “appropriate” response.
Heh...I immediately drew parallels with that statement to those signs reading: "Behead those who slander our Prophet"
As if their primal rage had anything to do with those cartoons, these cartoons don't offend them, our existance offends them. Most didn't even see them but it was a great excuse to go all nuts on the streets and burn flags of a country they haven't even heard of. Offend them, don't offend them, they will hate us anyway so draw mohammed (pbwh) being raped by Moby Dick for all I care; doesn't matter, any excuse will do with these people to be theirselves, we saw it in France, Denmark, Holland, England, Australia, Sweden, Belgium, Germany, just about everywhere where they have a local majority. The moral: Denmark shouldn't have had newspapers and France shouldn't have electricity, to bad they do, as do we all. Having to deal with the inquisition in 2006 geez.
A.Saturnus
04-11-2006, 20:33
The director of the Goethe-institute in Cairo said that she talked with Moslims visiting the institute about the cartoons. Naturally, most of them were intellectuals. What's striking is that most agreed that it's acceptable for a Danish newspaper to make jokes about Mohammed and that Freedom of Speech is a good thing. That confirms me in my believe that we do not have so much a culture clash between the West and Moslims but between the educated and the uneducated.
Truly now? Pray, do tell...
There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Tens of millions all around the world protested the cartoons. Most of these protests were peaceful. I would say, that those involved in violent acts during the protests made up less than 1% of the total protesters. In the thousands to tens of thousands.
It still was a lot more than a handful. :inquisitive:
The director of the Goethe-institute in Cairo said that she talked with Moslims visiting the institute about the cartoons. Naturally, most of them were intellectuals. What's striking is that most agreed that it's acceptable for a Danish newspaper to make jokes about Mohammed and that Freedom of Speech is a good thing. That confirms me in my believe that we do not have so much a culture clash between the West and Moslims but between the educated and the uneducated.
I hope you are right... As that is something that can be fixed.
“I heard in the news that the recent demonstrations and riots in France are drawing crowds of 1 million...of a nation with 60-61 million people (according to the CIA factbook estimate of the July 2006 population).” That had nothing to do with the cartoons. That is against a law designed to enslave the youths.
And the CIA had just to read the result of the official census done every, euh, 5 years?
Against the cartoons, the Muslim French Representatives went to the Court, failed, and few demonstrations, peaceful. The Muslim Extremists/Fascist lost all their battle in France, from the Hidjab to the attack on Freedom of Speech. I have to add that the Extremes Christians did the same and lost also when trying to ban movies or books. Did you notice that the extremists, of all (mainly) the monotheistic religions, share the same goals?
Reenk Roink
04-12-2006, 02:04
"Sacred things"... sacred to who? How many need to find it sacred? Are Nazis alowed to have their things sacred, or only the "deserving" groups that you decide. Is GWB allowed to say any criticism of him is not allowed as he is sacred? Is the KKK going to be sacred?
Truely a stupid statement.
~:smoking:
No, it's a quite valid one, from someone who would not like his God/religious beliefs to be tastelessly jibed. Navaros is not the only one...
Also, how on earth can you compare Nazi's and the KKK to Christianity, a well established religion and way of life which is practiced by nearly a third of humanity?
And again, I am seeing confusion between intelligent criticism and crude mockery meant to incite hatred. Nobody is arguing against the former...
Perhaps we could agree to say it was a “relative” handful than, but still you underplay the severity of the amount of violent protesters by calling them “only a handful”. A couple million protestors armed with minds filled with violence is a really really bad thing, I don’t think it took 2 million people to plan the 9/11 attacks or any of the hundreds of other smaller scale attacks we hear about almost every day. Perhaps the other 1.58 billion “peace loving” Muslims could help these misguided “handful” learn a littletolerance and understanding of other cultures.
I believe my choice of words was well justified in the proper context of the entire Muslim populous. You may linger on semantics longer, but I assure, the ratio of violent protesters as compared to the amount of peaceful protesters is small enough to be labeled with the colloquial "a handful."
And your sarcastic use of 'peace loving' to describe the other 1.58 billion Muslims simply reveals more of your bias towards Muslims in general. As for the matter of the mainstream Muslim populace deploring the violence, it has already been done. As I recall, when a handful of Muslim protesters became hell bent on sacking an embassy in Syria, while the Syrian police stood aside, many high ranking religious leaders actually waded into the crowd and tried to stop the wanton destruction. Statements condemning the violence, from the more liberal viewpoint on a site that the fellow Organ Dariush had on his sig (I fail to recall the website), to the more traditional declaration (http://www.duaatalislam.com/english.htm) were easily found by a simple Google search. As for this part, "learn a little tolerance and understanding of other cultures..." I beseech you to recall the cartoons and then wonder of the pot calling the kettle black...
Wanting to behead anyone who slanders their prophet is hardly an “appropriate” response.
Precisely, I hold the exact opinion; which is exactly why I also hold the opinion that the use of "bullets and daisy cutters" is inappropriate.
That had nothing to do with the cartoons. That is against a law designed to enslave the youths.
And the CIA had just to read the result of the official census done every, euh, 5 years?
Against the cartoons, the Muslim French Representatives went to the Court, failed, and few demonstrations, peaceful. The Muslim Extremists/Fascist lost all their battle in France, from the Hidjab to the attack on Freedom of Speech. I have to add that the Extremes Christians did the same and lost also when trying to ban movies or books. Did you notice that the extremists, of all (mainly) the monotheistic religions, share the same goals?
Forgive me for my vagueness. I merely brought up the current demonstrations in France to give an example that such crowds could be and were brought out in the Muslim world to protest the Danish cartoons. I know that it is unrelated to the cartoons and has to do with some labor law.
However, it also proves how important perspective is in these situations. Obviously, you are more understanding of these protests as they oppose laws "designed to enslave youths." Just as Muslims would be more understanding towards protests against blasphemy.
Furthermore, there is no need to get defensive about the CIA. I simply included that as since I did not know the population of France, I went on the CIA factbook to check. I then added the tidbit to verify my source.
Also, it is not surprising that these monotheist "extremists" have goals of preventing the petty mockery of what the hold sacred. In fact, I agree with them. As I have said before: intelligent and genuine criticism is one thing, blatant mockery mean to incite hatred is another.
Lastly, I would like to end on a general note and point out that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, as I interpret, and as the framers of my country’s Constitution intended, does not give one unrestricted freedom to say or print whatever they want. Rather, the main intention behind these rights was to prevent an oppressive government and allow for intelligent criticism of government policies. That is probably why the law of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press were erected alongside blasphemy laws and there was no conflict or contradiction seen between them. I believe that the original intent must be kept in mind, as it must for our second amendment.
Reenk Roink, there is still the matter of where does the line go? Rory was perhaps going to extremes, but that was only to show that it can get really wierd. Who are we going to let decide what is sacred and what is not?
What about all those whom have sacred things ('things' as in meaning anything) that won't be protected? Should they just sit back while the 'protected' peoples bash them over? Will they?
No, we should be equal, and in this case that can only be done if we can mock each other.
And again, I am seeing confusion between intelligent criticism and crude mockery meant to incite hatred. Nobody is arguing against the former...
I think you see somethign wrong here... We are talkign about all 12 of the caricatures, of those two are offensive and the rest are from friendly going over neutral to sceptic. But all recieved the same amount of flak, all were abominable, apparently.
So why stating this you are in fact going against intelligent criticism as well as mockery.
The point is, should pictures or caricatures of Muhammed in any form be allowed to us?
If they are truly very offensive then most countries have a racism paragraph or something that can deal with it.
But if begin to protect religions we would should begin to prepare to lose 'Life of Brian', as that would be the first target of many Christian groups. And to be honest it is a mockery of the behaviour of the times, but apparently that is a mockery of the religion on a whole (but it certainly not blasphemy as Jesus is actually present at one point, being Jesus as we know him).
I want people to be able to continue these kinds of things. But that will end...
The religious people will just need to shout loud enough for the issue to be finished "ahh apparently it is offensive to them, so it must be removed as we have decided that you can't mock religion." Rational thought would vanish from the decidingprocess...
See the problem?
Big King Sanctaphrax
04-12-2006, 03:07
Whai find amusing about people who believe this kind of mockery is unacceptable is that they seem to believe that only mockery of supersti...sorry, religious beliefs, should be disallowed. What about people's worldly, rational beliefs? Why aren't they protected in the same way?
Whai find amusing about people who believe this kind of mockery is unacceptable is that they seem to believe that only mockery of supersti...sorry, religious beliefs, should be disallowed. What about people's worldly, rational beliefs? Why aren't they protected in the same way?
Hmmm... I guess the Evolutionist School peopl should just go and found a large church of some sort and proclaim that Evolution is their sacred belief and it is a mockery to their religion to claim they are wrong (while having no proof of it)...
The situation in reverse.
Reenk Roink
04-12-2006, 03:43
I had a really long response planned and going, but now I'm wondering, why waste the time? My paradigm is just too different from many on this forum on this topic. I guess I value people's feelings more than my "right" to mock them.
AntiochusIII
04-12-2006, 06:07
I had a really long response planned and going, but now I'm wondering, why waste the time? My paradigm is just too different from many on this forum on this topic. I guess I value people's feelings more than my "right" to mock them.Of course, I, and others, are of the complete opposite of you in this point, as you astutely pointed out.
Response to satire is an indication of a society's tolerance. Voltaire was jailed in absolutist France. Have we not come far since then? Why retract? Why receed what was won? Why the fickle feelings preciding over the principled world?
PanzerJaeger
04-12-2006, 06:49
The real question should be:
"Should the muslim hordes be allowed to inhabit this planet?"
AntiochusIII
04-12-2006, 06:54
The real question should be:
"Should the muslim hordes be allowed to inhabit this planet?"Yes?
Why not? :dizzy2:
The real question should be:
"Should the muslim hordes be allowed to inhabit this planet?" Are you going to make us go away, tough guy? :laugh4:
Of course. Nothing forcing people who find it offensive to draw/look at them though.
It's not like the subject for GCSE art in Britian should be "Draw Mohammed the Prophet."
yesdachi
04-12-2006, 14:45
I just agreed with you. In relative terms, the amount of violent protestors were a “handful”. I just don’t like the way you downplay the seriousness of 2 million people who want to behead me. We can disagree on the seriousness, I think it is a big deal and you dismiss them as only a “handful”, as if they shouldn’t really matter.
I believe my choice of words was well justified in the proper context of the entire Muslim populous. You may linger on semantics longer, but I assure, the ratio of violent protesters as compared to the amount of peaceful protesters is small enough to be labeled with the colloquial "a handful."
I am sarcastic about calling Muslims peace loving and I would say the Muslims that are, represent only the “handful”. The majority either participates in violent extremist actions or condone those that do by turning a blind eye the actions, with a remaining “handful” actually condemning the violence (as illustrated by your example of a few wading thru a crowd seeking to sack the embassy in Syria). Until the majority of Muslims denounce violence and actively try to stop it I will roll my eyes every time anyone calls Muslims peace loving. This doesn’t mean I am bias, it means I don’t think Muslims are peace loving. The lack of peace in most Muslim dominated countries kind of proves my point.
And your sarcastic use of 'peace loving' to describe the other 1.58 billion Muslims simply reveals more of your bias towards Muslims in general. As for the matter of the mainstream Muslim populace deploring the violence, it has already been done.
Until the majority of Muslims denounce violence and actively try to stop it I will roll my eyes every time anyone calls Muslims peace loving. This doesn’t mean I am bias, it means I don’t think Muslims are peace loving. The lack of peace in most Muslim dominated countries kind of proves my point.
Not that I'm not in agreement with you in general on this issue (about the caricatures), but I just want to point something out.
I have never heard somebody say "muslims are peaceloving" (and being a muslim him-/herself), what I have heard is "Islams is about peace" or "Islam is a religion of peace". Those statements are true, just like Christianity is about peace and love and all that. But we all know how people tend to interpret things, history is full of killing in the name of God/Allah.
So the religion can very much be about peace, but the worshippers can equally be unpeaceful.
Remember that next time you hear it. The statement is true, but the adherers do not see it that way apparently.
yesdachi
04-12-2006, 15:17
Not that I'm not in agreement with you in general on this issue (about the caricatures), but I just want to point something out.
I have never heard somebody say "muslims are peaceloving" (and being a muslim him-/herself), what I have heard is "Islams is about peace" or "Islam is a religion of peace". Those statements are true, just like Christianity is about peace and love and all that. But we all know how people tend to interpret things, history is full of killing in the name of God/Allah.
So the religion can very much be about peace, but the worshippers can equally be unpeaceful.
Remember that next time you hear it. The statement is true, but the adherers do not see it that way apparently.
Peace loving may have been a hasty choice of words on my part. :bow:
I agree with you assessment regarding the difference between a religion and those that worship it.
Well, I just didn't want you to accidentally jump into an argument with the wrong prefixes. Can you imagine this:
"Islam is a religion of peace... yada yada yada"
"Hey! Muslims are not peaful at all... ect ect ect"
*war erupts*
Louis VI the Fat
04-12-2006, 18:03
Heh heh, cartoon war (http://www.parasindonesia.com/photo.php?gid=41) between Indonesia and Australia: :balloon2: http://www.parasindonesia.com/img_upload/photo/ori/75row.gif
Heh heh, cartoon war (http://www.parasindonesia.com/photo.php?gid=41) between Indonesia and Australia: :balloon2: http://www.parasindonesia.com/img_upload/photo/ori/75row.gif
Oh, how offensive! :no:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.