Yes she is.
In 5 different topics.
This is a disingenuous point. There are far too many depictions of Jesus and God in western culture for Muslims to publicly protest every single one of them, and nothing you mentioned was a deliberate attack on Islam.
Good one, JohnBckWLD.
Sadly there aren’t a lot of politicians who stifle the diplo-babble, huh.
Who’s talking about banning anything?
First: Most “muslims” (and that’s hundreds of millions) don’t care much about this whole thing. Some other “muslims” use it for their agenda (death to america, etc).
Note that it was half a year ago these drawings appeared in the newspaper. Somebody wanted to use these pretty poorly drawed pictures to achieve something. We should not follow their agenda and start talking about muslims this and muslims that.
Second: There are alot of pictures of Mohammed in the muslim world. It is simply not true that it is not “allowed”.
Third: There a alot of christian fanatics, and lots of muslim fanatics. The overwhelming majority of us, christians and muslims alike, are not upset by drawings in some newspaper somewhere.
Fourth: It’s a good story. Let the media run it through between the commercials, wise people – hundred of millions of muslims and christians – shouldn’t give a rat’s ass.
Who’s freedom of expression is being abridged?
Theo van Gogh’s.
Maybe the Jews should threaten to kidnap Muslims and riot if the Arab papers ridicule there faith.
If anyone was generalizing this much about Christians or Jews or even Wiccans, this board would be in an uproar. Why is it considered so acceptable to spew so much simplistic bile against Islam?
That has nothing to do with this thread.
It has everything to do with this thread.
After van Gogh was decapitated we had a lot of overly PC suckers more or less saying: ‘It was his own fault - for insulting Islam’
That’s exactly what’s happening here.
Bomb scares? People being kidnapped? Death threats?
All the Danes’ own fault, huh.
For making some cartoons about Islam.
"The only French paper to print the cartoons fired it’s Managing Editor. " Thus, at the very least- his.
(Really? I thought I counted six, actually.)
What I’m saying, once again, is that a death threat from an adherent of Christianity in response to a perceived religious affront/assault is indeed equivalent, morally, to a death threat from an adherent of Islam in response to a perceived religious affront/assault.
Nowhere in any of these threads have I said or implied that the amount of death threats or other violent/threatening responses from Christians is at all “equivalent”, or even comparable, to the amount from Muslims.
But some people around here have been inaccurately implying or claiming that only Muslims react in such ways, or have shown that they’re unaware of any similar reactions from non-Muslims.
In the interests of fighting ignorance, I’m simply pointing out that yes, there certainly are numerous documented cases of Christians (and Jews—see concurrent Pit thread) threatening or committing violence over religious sacrilege issues.
Saying that non-Muslims do these things much less often and less virulently than Muslims is one thing. Saying that non-Muslims don’t do these things at all is another, and is demonstrably false.
The terrorists have won if the press withholds anything, including a cartoon, out of fear of riots or that people will be attacked, kidnapped, or anything else.
Fanatics are trying to use bullying and intimidation to abridge the freedom of the press. Fuck them.
Amen.
I don’t know French law, but I doubt he has a right to run whatever he wants in the newspaper.
gum, even if you have cites for that comment about van Gogh, it’s a separate topic.
Sorry, it does. It has everything to do with this thread.
This thread is, ultimately, about freedom of expression. And, indeed, Theo Van Gogh’s was destroyed.
JoseB
You could say that “ultimately,” about 50% of GD threads are about freedom of expression. Who cares what it’s “ultimately” about? We can only speak in generailities if we deal solely with that kind of fundamental stuff.
This thread is specifically about the reaction of some Muslims to these specific cartoons. We’re not talking about the reactions of Christians to Garfield or Jews to Foxtrot, much less B.C. or Family Circus, which would also be covered by freedom of expression. Lochdale was asking a question about cartoonists, newspapers, the free press, and so on, and Diogenes was answering it from a human rights perspective. gum brought up Theo van Gogh to change the subject.
MIM: The treatment of the Armanious murder will be a litmus test of the American media and the public’s committment to truth over political correctness. The silence which followed the discovery of the murdered Coptic Christian Armanious family was deafening. Indeed, it appears that in the US as in Holland, the authorities are downplaying the possibility of a ritual murder by Muslims to try and preempt social onrest and expressions of anti Muslim sentiment.
The fact that the press and artists are now practicing self censorship in Holland, and that law enforcement is downplaying Muslim violence, while websites such as Cyber Djihad, glorifying murder and Jihad, continue to flourish, is another indication that political correctness and dhimmitude have taken precedence over the rule of law and survival in The Netherlands and begs the question if the same thing is happening in the United States as well.
Ah, I thought you were talking about Dopers.