If Jews complain, and it’s obvious they’re doing it to be dicks to Jews, then sure.
LOL
Sometimes they are, yes, like when he’s speaking to Moses.
And no, it’s not just an Islamic violation. I don’t think anyone should feel obligated to follow devout Jewish law - I don’t. Same with any Christian prohibitions on iconography.
Not all Muslims prohibit depictions of Muhammed, some actually decorate their mosques with images. Why let the Caliphate speak for them all?
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
It’s the second commandment. The penalty for violating it in Jewish law is death by stoning. You won’t find a single devout Jewish depiction of God, whereas you’ll find tons of devout Islamic depictions of Muhammed. Just because Jews today don’t kill people over it doesn’t mean its a central tenant; that you react to this with “LOL” shows how clueless you are.
Right, 'cause that ain’t in the Christian Bible.
Totally on topic, I’m still not really clear on exactly why and to what purpose people have this incredible need to depict Muhammad.
Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the same God (you can go on about how God is an ill defined term anyways- sure, I agree, but they all believe that they believe in the same God).
Would you be ok with a rule that says “no depictions of Donald Trump so we avoid offending his supporters”?
Ahh, the ‘answer a question with a different question’ non-answer!
I’ll spell it out for you: because we should be free to critique any ideology and view.
Now I repeat – you cool with a moratorium on depictions of Trump? I don’t see why anyone would want to depict Trump anyways, other than to disparage his supporters.
Equivalently dickish. “Physical assault” is also bullshit. Pork in kosher sausage is not assault. Neither is urine in holy water.
It looked to me like you were saying somehow eating isn’t coming into close personal contact, actually.
Because intent doesn’t matter to you?
No, the 2nd commandment is definitely not “one of Judaism’s key tenants.”
Lots of stoning deaths in Israel, these days?
It kind of would, given they only follow one part of it. If it was “a central tenant”, which it’s not.
That’s not why I lolled.
I have yet to hear any other explanation that “To be dicks” - even if it’s “to be dicks to terrorists specifically, and other Muslims are just collateral damage”
How does a cartoon of Muhammad critique Islam?
(Other than “Fuck you muslims and fuck your child fucking '‘profit’!”)
MrDibble, I’m not sure I understand your position, and I’d sure appreciate a little insight into it. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that an image of Muhammad gets published; say it’s an insulting one, if that makes a difference:
-
What do you believe the government should do in response? Collect fines? Hand out jail time? Write a sternly-worded letter while wagging a finger? Sing their praises and offer them medals? Nothing at all?
-
What do you believe the general public should do in response? Protest them? Cheer them on? Refuse to buy the publication, and encourage others to do likewise? Shrug?
-
What do you believe should be done if someone kills those who publish an image of Muhammad? Punish them exactly as harshly as you would someone who killed to make a few bucks? More harshly? Less harshly?
If it were your call all the way on all of those, what would those calls be?
You’re calling it out as not physical assault, which shows you believe there is a scale. I maintain that the scale goes mean words < tricking someone into coming into physical contact with what they consider unclean < causing actual harm to someone. Apparently you maintain that mean words = physical harm.
Also, I’ve never said CH aren’t “dickish”. People are allowed to be “dickish”.
Intent matters, but no harm no foul.
So to get political support from you, Jews need to start murdering apostates? You’re right, you’re not much of an atheist after all.
Remove their publishing license and hand out fines. I don’t think it merits jail time (unless they don’t pay the fine, of course)
Remove to buy it, protest, lobby their politicians to act, vote for new politicans if they don’t.
More harshly. Life in prison, no parole.
For example if you believe Islamic law is repressive to women you might have a cartoon of Muhammed sitting on a bunch of chained women in veils quoting lines of the Quran that nowadays people present as pro woman.
From Wikipedia:
And pissing off Muslims with this cartoon is supposed to change their opinions how exactly?
By exposing their position as ridiculous and inconsistent and making them rethink their ideas. How is any political cartoon supposed to work?
What should happen to the author of this cartoon?
Eta: spoilered a potentially offensive cartoon
No, but my scale is mean words = tricking someone < physical harm.
Not if they’re being racist about it.
Love how you get to determine the harm, not the people saying they’re being harmed.
Who said Islamic murderers have my political support?
That’s a lovely non sequitur.
Yes, a cartoon of ‘Muhammed sitting on a bunch of chained women in veils’ is sure to change minds!
Why, I don’t think I’ve heard a more compelling argument than that cartoon!
Ya know, just my humble opinion, but when you bait bears you really can’t object if sometimes you eat the bear … and sometimes the bear eats you.
I’m sure you’d be very supportive if someone posted that in a thread about a girl getting raped. I mean, did you SEE how short her skirt was? 