Univ paper shows Jesus/Muhammed kissing - Has Broke Back Mountain come to Muhammed?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20060...rawings_uoft_2

So folks, has the Univ of Toronto made the first step towards peace or is this just going to fan the fires even more?

Is it a kiss of peace?

Is it the start of something neither religion supports?

Is it a student artist with a sharp sense of humor and little worry who gets killed for it?

....you decide.

Here is the picture:

***Warning: The following image may be offensive to Islam. As a Muslim, by viewing this image you may be committing an offense against your religious beliefs.***

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://img92.imageshack.us/img92/3274/hesus8jm.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

So folks, has the Univ of Toronto made the first step towards peace or is this just going to fan the fires even more?

---

There is no way to world peace without freedom of expression. That being said, let's look at the cartoon before we judge.

Here it is. And here is the Strand's editorial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

There is no way to world peace without freedom of expression. That being said, let's look at the cartoon before we judge.

Here it is. And here is the Strand's editorial.

---

Looks like a beat ya to it. Heh. Great minds think alike? Now SUPPORT THE WAR DAMN YOU!~;)

I thought this might heat up because many student newspapers get uni funding (and therefore, indirectly, public funding), putting the government on the line.

However, The Strand's "About Us" page says they get funded by adverts and a student 'levy', which I assume is a tacked-on fee for all students to pay. Maybe that source of $$ might be jeopardized? Not that I advocate such... just thinking ahead a week or so to how this story might play out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Looks like a beat ya to it. Heh. Great minds think alike? Now SUPPORT THE WAR DAMN YOU!~;)

---

I'll tell you what: I might support a war against Iran. But that is for another post, another time, even another universe, I hope. But there may be no other choice.

Now let's get this Canadian toon show on the road. I like it.

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

"We reject completely the idea that what we published was an act of hate or an attack on the Muslim faith, or on Muslims . . . or the Christian community."

---

Quote:

---

"One's deed is what he thinks"

---

Turkish proverb

I was expecting something like this to happen, when all this ends will there be any countrys the muslim world is not angry with? :inquisitive:

Im not bothered about this or any other pictures like them, their no threat to my faith, i hope muslims may come to this conclusion too, there are just to many other more important things in this world to worry about...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary

Im not bothered about this or any other pictures like them, their no threat to my faith, i hope muslims may come to this conclusion too, there are just to many other more important things in this world to worry about...

---

King of the moment to you my friend. :bow:


How true this is in many religions. Christians are terrified of homosexuals as an offense to their religion. My own father-in-law, whom I debate religion with regularly, gets quite charged when I argue that original sin and salvation run counter to human survival. If there were not some truth to my argument, then it should be no threat to his faith.

And similarly, the Muslim masses should not be inflamed by western publication of insulting images of their prophet. It is no threat to their faith.

:bounce:

personally, i think its a good message, note; it says tunnel of tolerance not of homosexuality, and i hope it gets a better appeal than the doodle i did in math with muhammed pointing an AK-47 at jesus who is pointing an m16 at muhammed,it is going to be printed in the new york times next sunday.:rifle:

PS. just a joke, never did such doodle as i can respect both religions, a little less of late but even if i belive there wrong i hope they can be peacful.

This is one thing if it is just the 'kiss of peace', quite another if it goes beyond that...

Quote:

---

If there were not some truth to my argument, then it should be no threat to his faith.

---

There was no truth in Marx's derision of religion, and hardly any at all in all of communistic theory, but communism was still a grave threat to Christianity. Ditto for Nazism's social darwinistic master race idea.

Crazed Rabbit

I wont be surprised if this incites protests outside every embassy on the planet (even thoe ones that had nothing to do with it)...and Im sure decrying this 'offensive gesture' will go hand in hand with other offensive gestures like flag burning and placards that say 'death to the west' and other such tolerant sentiments... ~:rolleyes:

What I'll never cease to find ammusing is the Islamic world getting on its high horse about images of their prophet and then in the same hand having holocaust cartoon competitions....

Is anything really being served by deliberately provoking fundamentalist Muslim or Christian wrath? I fall back to that tenet of being a gentleman... just because you can say a thing doesn't mean you should say a thing. Yes, the woman who works in my HR department may be as ugly as sin, and I may be well within my legal rights to make a public statement to that affect. But does that make me a heroic proponent of free speech for doing so? No. It makes me an insensitive jerk.

I agree that members of Islam, and Christianity for that matter, need to grow thicker hides. But I fail to see how this works towards that goal. If you want to encourage people to an open dialogue of their views, maybe antagonizing and provoking them isn't the best possible way.

DonCorleone -father of Queen Jillian- I salute you :bow:

Quote:

---

Yes, the woman who works in my HR department may be as ugly as sin, and I may be well within my legal rights to make a public statement to that affect. But does that make me a heroic proponent of free speech for doing so? No. It makes me an insensitive jerk.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Our Insensitive University Jerk

"We reject completely the idea that what we published was an act of hate or an attack on the Muslim faith, or on Muslims . . . or the Christian community."

---

Yes, I'm damn sure you do, my ***.

To me it looks like a friendly kiss, nothing more and nothing less.
But I´m not sure what this could/should change?

I think the element that betokens the greatest problem is the grasping of the robe on the Muhammed figure by the Jesus figure. One's interpretation of that as neutral or homo-erotic would go a long way in defining the level of annoyance one feels with the cartoon.

Of itself, the kiss of peace is present in both of the faith-books implicitly referenced and the cartoonist has stopped short of a full presentation of Muhammed, thus (at least attempting) to avoid offense on a direct level.

I heard about this on the radio this AM, and decided the backroom would have some fun with this particular "football."

Don C, I like your summary on gentlemanly speech. I've heard it summarized that a "gentleman is never unintentionally rude to anyone," but your def might be a little better.

Somehow, my first impressions of the cartoon was that it was satirizing the whole danish cartoon thing in the first place, and trying to say that the two should "make-up" by trying to make light of it:balloon2:

Of course though, it could be simply meant to offend everyone in the world and secretly they're pushing everyone's buttons, trying to start the third world war that will be a nuclear catastrophe.


All that said, they should have expected some to take it the wrong way, if they had to think about it that hard.:juggle2:

Oh My God There Gay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Is anything really being served by deliberately provoking fundamentalist Muslim or Christian wrath?

---

It's not clear to me that that is what the cartoon is doing. As a non-believer with an tolerant view of homosexuality, the cartoon strikes me as being rather sweet. It is a very different animal to the Muhammad/bomb one, which was hateful. There is a distinction between bombs and kisses.

I think what the student was trying to do was to make a point, not a provocation. I suspect the cartoon is trying to say various things - inter alia, that religions should tolerate each other; and also that they should tolerate homosexuality. If the fundamentalist Muslim or Christian response to that is "wrath" then that's sad, but I would not insult the student cartoonist because of such over-reactions.

I think that the cartoon should be taken within a wholistic context.

First: A Simon Appleton pointed out, there is a big difference between bombs and kisses.

Second: Middle Easertn culture has a different view of men kissing and holding hands. Look at the Bush/Saudi crown Prince fiasco.

Third: The student did avoid a direct representation of the prophet.

Fourth: It says "tunnel of tolerance", similar to "tunnel of love". It implies peace between the two religions. EDIT: I think if the student were to have kept tunnel of love, it would have implied homosexualtiy more directly, which he appeared to try and avoid. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to represent this level of intimate peace between the people or two concepts. Because the figures are both male, of course the homo thing strikes our minds first. But how else do you represent two very different religions (represented by males) engaged in total harmony? Holding hands? Nah. Won't cut it. This is intimate tolerance. (And I don't need to kiss my buddy after watching a ball game by the way):2thumbsup:


Interesting convo.

Perhaps by illustrating a Vienese Waltz....

Sorry, just kidding.

DA, I think you are probably onto a good interp of the artist's theme and efforts. Unfortunately, I think a higher percentage of the "audience" for this cartoon will react to the more negative interpretation first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Perhaps by illustrating a Vienese Waltz....

Sorry, just kidding.

DA, I think you are probably onto a good interp of the artist's theme and efforts. Unfortunately, I think a higher percentage of the "audience" for this cartoon will react to the more negative interpretation first.

---

That's cause we live in a world of self-righteous arrogant bastards. Even if they were in the tunnel of anal delights, who cares?


As I said before, religion is not the problem. The intolerance of the religious is the problem. Some dude sticken his schlong in another dude's cornhole should be, as one fine member put it, no threat to their faith!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

There was no truth in Marx's derision of religion, and hardly any at all in all of communistic theory, but communism was still a grave threat to Christianity. Ditto for Nazism's social darwinistic master race idea.
Crazed Rabbit

---

Neither of those docterins would change my faith, for the presise reason you state that there was no truth in them, of course people motivated by such ideals could damage the church and kill people, but (i hope) that despite this my faith would not be destroyed.

This image is not doing anything to threaten my faith so a can see no real point to oppose it. If my faith was so weak that a picture like this could destroy it, it wouldn't have lasted this long anyway!

The very worst thing to do in my opinion is be sensative about an issue like this because it will incourage others to join in mocking you (as my own experience as one of the few christians in an mainly atheist school taught me)

I think it's funny when you contrast this story with the cartoons of Mohammed as a bomb thrower and the reactions you see from people here in the US. People immediately go from "See, they can't control themselves" to "How dare they! Somebody should put a bullet in that guy's skull". Contrast that further with David Irving getting tossed in the clink for 3 years and you see there really are a wide assortments of views on free speech and what's entailed. Kudos to those (such as Adrian) that are able to maintain consistency in their arguments through a the wide breadth of scenarios, but I certainly understand that the subtle nuances do change people's views.

I think at the end of the day, people should be legally entitled to say what they will, provided they cause no physcial harm to other's person or property in the process. That being said, I think it is incumbent on us as human beings to accept responsibility of free speech and speak in opposition to ideas we disagree with, even if those offenses aren't directed at us, specifically. I think those cartoons in Denmark & the rest of Europe were rather callous, showed a blatant disregard for the feelings of a large portion of the human family, yet were 100% legally entitled to be run in the paper.

Unless I tied one on in the past few weeks and PWI'd (posted while inebriated), I believe I've stayed out of the whole 'bomb in the turban' and other Mohammed cartoon debates. Lord knows, there's been plenty of discussion in the backroom without my loud mouth. But honestly folks, I want to repeat what I said up above here. Just because we 'can' say a thing doesn't mean we 'should'.

I went to that hateful bastard the not-so-Rev. Fred Phelp's website, and without going into details, if I was ever going to censor anyone, it would be him and his so called faithful flock. But what would that accomplish? It won't bring Matthew Shephard back, it won't make his family feel any better. Like I said in another thread, I am seriously considering flying to Topeka and exercising my right to free speech by heckling him up at the pulpit one of these days. Shame on him, and shame on the bigoted hate mongers that crowd around him. Scripture is rife with warnings from Christ and St. Paul warning people about doing that sort of thing, so I guess at the end of the day, some people are just too stupid to accept their salvation.

Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is not that I believe people have a right to live in a offense-free world, or that people don't have the right to be offensive. Right is such a strong yet limited word. It signfies what is to be allowed. It says nothing about what ought to happen. But let's all look around at a group that we've villified in the past and ask ourselves, was it really necessary? Could we have made our point another way?

Before I get hit with a brick myself, in the immortal words of Reginald Denny, can't we all just get along?~:grouphug:

Please someone correct me If Im wrong but isnt images of Muhammed forbidden?

If that is the case then isnt this whole fiasco (starting from the danish lot) based on the assumption that the cartoon represents Muhammed? We dont know what Muhammed looked like, so it could just be a guy in a turban- correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

Please someone correct me If Im wrong but isnt images of Muhammed forbidden?

If that is the case then isnt this whole fiasco (starting from the danish lot) based on the assumption that the cartoon represents Muhammed? We dont know what Muhammed looked like, so it could just be a guy in a turban- correct?

---

Considering that the entire point of the cartoons was to make a picture of the prophet Muhammed, I'll say that this point is moot.

If I make an insulting picture of "lancelot posting in the org", does anything change because I don't know how you look like?

Jesus isn't a very good kisser. He should have firmly gripped Muhammed's butt cheeks or atleast pinched a nipple. Didn't God have the "talk" with His Son? Jesus!!!:furious3:


:laugh4:

DD, I'm not entirely certain, but didn't you just utter an inverted, reflexive blasphemy? That's intriguingly circular...may have to parse the sentences a bit to confirm.:book: :book: