Muslim riots over cartoons--is political correctness going overboard?

[Pope_Bob_The_Pious]

@Marley23

And the United Negro College Fund blah blah blah. I’m sure the preferred spelling is “Muslim” - that seems to be most popular, and if I had my AP Stylebook on hand, I’d guarantee it says to use that spelling.

The point is, obviously the spellling ‘Moslem’ does not cause practitioners of Islam too much consternation, proof being that the name of a Islamic charity includes ‘Moslem’.

If the word in question was ‘Mussulman’ or ‘Mohammadean’, there is grounds for correction. But the difference between ‘u’ and ‘o’ does not offense make.

[Marley23]

@Pope Bob The Pious

The point is, obviously the spellling ‘Moslem’ does not cause practitioners of Islam too much consternation, proof being that the name of a Islamic charity includes ‘Moslem’.

So does my example constitute proof that American blacks aren’t offended by the word Negro (or the phrase “Colored People”)? The answer is no. One example does not amount to proof; it’s entirely possible, as in the examples I just mentioned, that the spelling was more popular when the charity was founded.

[Pope_Bob_The_Pious]

@Marley23

So does my example constitute proof that American blacks aren’t offended by the word Negro (or the phrase “Colored People”)? The answer is no.

I would guess that American black folks are not too terribly offended by ‘negro’, or they would have changed the name of the charity (though I cede that it has fallen from common usage). After all, we have a Irish-American Heritage Center, but no Drunk Mick Bastard Society. Names that are too offensive don’t make the cut.

One example does not amount to proof; it’s entirely possible, as in the examples I just mentioned, that the spelling was more popular when the charity was founded.

Sure, but it’s not like you have to look long or hard to find the spelling ‘moslem’ in use by moslems. Or even by muslims.

[Marley23]

@Pope Bob The Pious

I would guess that American black folks are not too terribly offended by ‘negro’, or they would have changed the name of the charity (though I cede that it has fallen from common usage).

Do you live in America?

[matt]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I have no idea what show you’re talking about. When did Jerry Springer have Jesus on his show? Why would Muslims give a fuck? Are you suggesting that if every Muslim in te world doesn’t protest every single Western depiction of Jesus then no Muslim anywhere has a right to be offended by a cartoon depicting Mohammed as a terrorist? What is your point, man?

Quartz is referring to Jerry Springer the Opera, which drew rather a lot of Christian protest in the UK. It did indeed have Jesus on the show.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4159217.stm

[Polerius]

<slight hijack>
Link

The US State Department called for European media to act more responsibly and not to offend Muslims.

I think it’s funny that the U.S. is trying to teach Europe how not to offend Muslims, given that they INVADED A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY on false pretenses in the Middle East.

</slight hijack>

[Pope_Bob_The_Pious]

@Marley23

Do you live in America?

Yes.

I shouldn’t have taken the bait of your strawman in the first place, so if you want to debate the UNCF, another thread would be in order. It has nothing to do with the point I was originally responding to.

[Walter_Windchill]

@Kimstu

@Originally Posted by Walter Windchill

CNN is showing a picture of the Danish flag being burned on the same article where they talk about being respectful to Islam. That is politically correct .

**Where was all this fearless defense of the freedom of the press and noble defiance of radical Islamist outrage last year, back when many Muslims worldwide were protesting and rioting over press reports on allegations of Qur’an desecration in American prisons? **

Um… I never said that. In both cases, I think the media is right to run the story, and – in fact – wrong and unprofessional NOT to run the story.

[Wesley_Clark]

@Polerius

<slight hijack>
Link

I think it’s funny that the U.S. is trying to teach Europe how not to offend Muslims, given that they INVADED A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY on false pretenses in the Middle East.

</slight hijack>

Heh. You really have to wonder if this will actually help us out. That is actually pretty sad. I’m sure most muslims can see through our motivation and we used our political allies as a whipping boy to gain political points. We screwed up twice.

[Wesley_Clark]

@Kimstu

You may be right. But what I’ve got to wondering about is this:

**Where was all this fearless defense of the freedom of the press and noble defiance of radical Islamist outrage last year, back when many Muslims worldwide were protesting and rioting over press reports on allegations of Qur’an desecration in American prisons? **

The allegations of desecration at that time were certainly frequent and substantial enough to count as news, and it’s certainly an important topic that people deserve to be informed about. That seems to me at least as deserving of press coverage as a bunch of deliberately provocative anti-Islamic cartoons.

Yet during the desecration controversy, lots of people were not only criticizing the Muslim rioters (and rightly so, IMHO), but also bitterly attacking the Western press—specifically, Newsweek, which reported such allegations made by a government source who later retracted them. The complaint was that the media shouldn’t have unnecessarily and irresponsibly stirred up so much negative opinion in the Muslim world. We had numerous threads on the topic around here last May:

Way to start a holy war, Newsweek

.

No idea. Probably because cartoons are not the same thing as a physical act like flushing a Koran down a toilet. That is like comparing real life animal abuse to a Garfield comic strip.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Giles

I understand that the Danish flag contains a cross which is a version of the Christian cross. So burning a Danish flag is in effect burning a Christian religious symbol.

But christian crosses are also offensive to muslims. Reminds them of the crusades.

Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, said Tuesday the red cross was an insensitive reminder of the Crusades…Doyle added that it was now time for England to find a new flag and a patron saint who is “not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with.”

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Pope Bob The Pious

I would guess that the American Moslem Foundation might disagree with you.

There;'s an NAACP as well, but we don’t still go around talking about “colored people.”

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

Oh, here we go. The Danish Embassy in Damascus is on fire now because of “protests”.

If they are trying to affirm the beliefs espoused in the cartoons in question they’re doing everything right.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Until around the late 1980s, the word was commonly spelled Moslem. The spelling has since fallen into disuse. Muslims do not recommend this spelling because it is often pronounced “mawzlem,” which sounds somewhat similar to an Arabic word for “oppressor” (Za’lem in Arabic). The word is pronounced “Mus”-lim in Arabic, but some English dictionaries allow both “Mus”-lim and “Muz”-lim. The word is now most commonly written “Muslim”.

Muslims

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@matt

Quartz is referring to Jerry Springer the Opera, which drew rather a lot of Christian protest in the UK. It did indeed have Jesus on the show.
BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Springer opera draws 1.7m viewers

The article doesn’t say anything about a depiction of Jesus. What about the depiction should have been offensive to Muslims?

[RaftPeople]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Nope. It has zero to do with the question posed in the OP, which was only about a decision made by CNN.

Here is the title of the thread:
“Muslim riots over cartoons–is political correctness going overboard?”

“is political correctness going overboard” is regarding the general state of our communications with an example from CNN provided.
Your argument that this thread has “zero” to do with freedom of speech is not correct.

[RaftPeople]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I doubt many Danes would care. The obsessive veneration of flags is pretty much a uniquely American pathology.

It can’t be compared to a religious offense in any case.

Why can’t it be compared?
Is there some absolute universal standard that I missed in school?

Everyone is passionate about different things and everyone gets offended by different things.

[Marley23]

@Pope Bob The Pious

I shouldn’t have taken the bait of your strawman in the first place

A strawman is a weak caricature of somebody else’s position. What I offered is called an example.

[HeelB4Zod]

Hey DtC,

I didn’t see it mentioned on this thread, but the only journalist (that I know of) in the Middle East who had the guts and integrity to publish the cartoons was Jihad Momani, and he was summarily arrested by the allegedly “enlightened” Jordanian government.

I think it’s safe to say his freedom of expression - even defined down to Jordanian standards - was abridged.

That the American mainstream media isn’t publishing the photos is further proof of its irrelevancy. It’s also the latest betrayal of the public it supposedly “serves” due to excessive pussiness.

Polerius,

I think it’s funny that the U.S. is trying to teach Europe how not to offend Muslims, given that they INVADED A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY on false pretenses in the Middle East.

While I hate that our government’s official response hasn’t been more supportive of the beleaguered European papers that published the cartoons, I think the U.S. government is quite content to let this story stick to the “Europe vs. Islam” narrative. And frankly, I can’t say I blame the government. It’s about time that somebody else was the nutcase Muslims’ punching bag for a change.

With that said, Rune and gum, you have my sympathies. I think Europe is facing some very unpleasant truths about the largest-growing segment of their population, and will have to solve some profound social problems in the coming years. I don’t blame you for being alarmed.

[Sam_Stone]

It might help if the people in question didn’t publish cartoons like this, which shows Ariel Sharon eating a baby (the old Jewish blood libel thing), or if they didn’t routinely publish cartoons depicting Jews as pigs and monkeys, and if they would refrain from blowing up religious icons and destroying temples of other faiths.

It woudl be nice if at least some of the PC handwringing going on over this particular cartoon was directed at the much more hate-filled and graphic imagery coming from those who are marching in the streets today against this ‘insult’. For that matter, it would be nice if we could work up a little more rage about the extermination of homosexuals and oppression of women in these societies.

I remember the volume of protests in the west against apartheid in South Africa. It eventually changed a country. I remember Hollywood boycotting Sin City. Why is it that the much worse atrocities going on in the Middle East and elsewhere are greeted with silence or outright attempts at a moral equivalency with the west?

This cartoon may have been in bad taste. Maybe it shouldn’t have been published. But freedom of expression means freedom to say or depict things that are in bad taste. Hell, artists have dipped crucifixes in Urine and drawn pictures of the Virgin Mary in feces. And every time they do, civil libertarians get ready to denounce anyone who would criticise them, on the ground of free expression (and I’m one of them).

So whether or not the cartoon was in bad taste, the people using violence and threats to attempt to intimidate others and shut down speech are the ones who are the obnoxious assholes here. I might not have published that cartoon the first time, but I’ll tell you my instinct right now is to say, “Oh, you didn’t like that? How about THIS one? Or THIS one?”