Between this shit and the Joint Chiefs flap, it looks like cartoons are the new shark attacks.
I’m happy that the PM of Denmark told those offended to essentially go fuck themselves. What the hell should they apologize for, the paper is privately owned.
[QUOTE=World Eater]
… the Joint Chiefs flap …QUOTE]
???
[QUOTE=CC]
Over here.
I’m a non religious/non believer, but I empathise with those who are rightfully upset at the drawing.
If Christians and others would perhaps look at the “cartoon” from another perspective maybe they might understand some of the outrage of people from a totally different culture. Mohammed is* never * to be drawn - to draw him as a terrorist doubles the sin/insult. Would cartoons of the Virgin Mary as a hooker or Jesus as a crackhead be acceptable to the pious of certain faiths? How about Abraham and Moses as pimps?
Mohammed isn’t a political feature to the believers - this is a sacrilige to do this. Mohammed is a religious icon to billions - many who are not of Arab descent so the “cartoon” exposes the ignorance of many.
If Jesus were dressed in an American flag wouldn’t the Christians from around the world be offended?
There are political leaders in the Middle East that may deserve the pitting of the world via cartoon, but one beleived by many to be a prophet from thousands of years ago does not.
Yep - probably a lot of people would be offended by depictions of Mary as hooker - it’s probably been done, in fact. Or Jesus wrapped in an American flag. My question is, would they then storm the offices of the newspaper with guns, threaten the lives of the publisher, riot in the streets, take over the buildings where the papers were published, etc? Probably not. We all have the right to be offended. We all have the right to get our undies in a knot. We all have the obligation to try to be nice to one another, to be respectful of one another’s religions, etc. But when it doesn’t happen, it doesn’t happen. Ok. Deal with it, I think a lot of us are saying. Don’t fucking go off in full riot regailia. Spend your energy in a classroom educating someone. Go rake in a garden. Work. Do something to make your life better, or someone else’s. Don’t waste your time trying to run someone else’s life, or trying to avenge some offense. Heaven can wait. Grow up. Civilize yourself.
Sure, they’d be pissed. Can’t say I’d blame them, either. But these were comics published in a privatly owned newspaper, and the response is to boycott products from the entire country where that paper was printed. That’s just stupid. Be offended at the people who actually offended you. Don’t take it out on everyone who happens to live in the same rough geographical area.
Needless to say, Rune’s counter-boycott is equally stupid, for exactly the same reasons.
That’s the nicest thing they’re doing. The fanatics are also calling on Bin laden to blow up Denmark.
I’ve just seen a large group on the TV chanting “Denmark, your 7/7 is on it’s way”
Nice.
Well, yes, but I assumed I didn’t need to explain why that was unacceptable.
I hate to disillusion you, but this sort of thing does indeed happen.
Maybe not specifically about use of the Tetragrammaton, but extremist Haredim or Orthodox Jewish fundamentalists in Israel have definitely turned on numerous occasions to violence and threats over sacrilege issues.
Haredim throw stones at cars for driving on the Sabbath
Haredim riot over proposed archaeological dig, fearing it might disturb Jewish graves
Haredim gather for mass curse, praying that the hands of archaeologists be cut off
Haredim riot over performance of autopsy
Haredim issue death threats to secularist politician
I could go on, unfortunately, but you get the idea.
No, of course the overall, worldwide level of violence and intimidation from Jewish (or Christian, or Hindu) fanatics over religious issues is not comparable to that from Muslim fanatics. But let’s not kid ourselves that it doesn’t happen.
"About 500 protesters who gathered in London on Friday carried signs with slogans such as: “Freedom of speech, go to hell” and “Kill, kill Denmark!”
As they walked through the British capital, they shouted: “What do we want? Jihad! [holy war!] When do we want it? Now!”
“The only way this will be resolved is if those who are responsible are turned over so they can be punished by Islamic law, so that they can be executed,” Abu Ibraheem, a 26-year-old protester in the British march, told the Associated Press. “There are no apologies … Those responsible would have to be killed.”
I’m so pleased I don’t have to ridicule Islam anymore.
They’re doing a splendid job themselves.
You don’t disillusion me, you educate me. Fortunately, some of these instances are no more than praying for injury (admittedly ugly, but harmless in itself), and some is more or less self-protection, i.e. defending one’s own area against some sort of perceived incursion. None-the-less, you are absolutely correct - extremist fanatasism exists in other religions and other areas, and some of your examples are anything BUT benign. And, it is indeed fortunate that it is not more widespread. I still feel - without any hard statistics to back it up, lamentably - that the percentage of fantatics / extremists / fundamentalists in Islam appears to be much larger than in Judaism or Christianity.
Freedom Fries, anyone?
I agree with you that praying for the death or injury of an enemy is not as bad as deliberately threatening to cause it (although I don’t like the more direct menace implied by the participants who said they “would not be surprised nor upset if one of those attending the rally actually carried out the sentence”).
But I really don’t see how throwing stones at cars that are legally driving on a public street because they are breaking a religious prohibition that you follow counts as “more or less self-protection”. Nor do I see how that description applies to riot or assault committed in response to plans to legally build a road or legally perform an autopsy. Calling such violent reactions “more or less self-protection” strikes me as a pretty indefensible double standard.
I think you’re quite right about that point, and I don’t think hard statistics would be difficult to find.
:rolleyes:
I bet I could fine equally stupid and violent talk from the fringes of any group, but don’t let me spoil your little jihad.
Problem is, the size of the fringe appears larger.
When was the last time the KKK had tens of thousands of protesters across different cities, each in different countries, screaming for death?
Replace KKK with any fringe group you like.
Hm…well, it’s food for thought, certainly.
I’d see the Xtian equivalent being more Jesus sitting with some PR people, and them listing the craziness of some of his most looney followers, i.e. Robertson, Phelps, etc., and saying “Hey, if the looneys are the loudest/only voices of your religion being heard, and the only images of your religion being broadcast at large, you’ve got bigger issues to deal with than a couple offensive political cartoons.” The image of Mohammed isn’t drawn as a terrorist in that picture, but is holding a drawing of himself as a terrorist.
And by my non-muslim, American ideals, I don’t see calling a public perception problem a problem offensive, but I recognize that apparently, some people can.
Is it just the image of Mohammed that’s offensive in that particular cartoon? For the record, I thought the majority of the other ones linked were either outright offensive or just plain dumb, but I just didn’t see what there is to be really considered offensive in the particular one I was talking about. (In my admittedly non-muslim American brain, that is)
Mohamad (pbuh) has a bomb in his turban.
What is not offensive about that?
And it is the issue of representation AT ALL, not even the particulars.
That is just ‘gilding the lilly’.
What if the editor who comissioned the cartoons was charged as a terrorist?
Yes, Cerri, - it’s just the image that’s offensive. No image of Muhammad is allowed. No picture, no matter how “flattering” it might be, is allowed. It’s not that some of the cartoons were also satirical. That just added to the offense. That we see their offense as ridiculous is beside the point. It’s offensive to them to create visual images of the prophet. That’s their point. And to reprint them exacerbates the problem. In Christianity, lots of artists have knocked themselves out trying to depict God or Jesus in the most flattering of versions. But that’s Christianity. Islam doesn’t see it that way. Ok. So be it. My beef is that they can’t simply take offense. They have to turn it into jihad. Instead of " I hate what those motherfuckers have done," it becomes, “Death to those motherfuckers.” Huge leap. Huge.
Do you have a crime involved here? Or just a summary judgement? If upsetting people is a crime, Hollywood execs should be the first to go.