Redding mine…
[QUOTE=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’.
[QUOTE]
Well, we’ve found one thing that doesn’t hystericaly offend them of cause consternation.
Yes, the existence of god is debateable. But even if he DID exist (and I have no reason to believe he DOES), so what? Does that make it smart, effective, or even remotely reasonable to riot over it? So WHAT! So they insulted their god. It wouldn’t change the existence or non-existence of him. Mohammed may have been a real person, but his connection to the Big Guy who may or may not exist hasn’t been proven. The insult (and no, that’s not an opinion…that’s a fact) simply doesn’t change anything. The rage is pointless.
I would say that Christ is as important to Christians as Mohammed is to Muslims.
Sure I remember the firestorm that “piss Christ” caused. I remember all the incensed Christians burning buildings and pretty much acting like madmen. :rolleyes:
Sure one can be offended; it all boils down to how you react to the offense.
Current events speak volumes.
Correct. The absolute knowledge that a piece of writing, art or speech - that would be at most controversial if the subject and approach concerned any other religion or religious figure - stands a good chance of provoking death threats or riots casts a pall of self-censorship over all of us.
I don’t get it. Flushing a book down a toilet is a physical act. Drawing a blasphemous cartoon of a religious figure is also a physical act.
What is fundamentally considered offensive about each of them is the disrespect they symbolize for the religion that venerates that book and that religious figure.
So I still don’t see why free press reportage on Qur’an-flushing should be scolded for provoking Muslim outrage and violence, while free press reportage on blasphemous cartoons should be cheered as a noble defense of free speech, even when it also provokes Muslim outrage and violence.
I think that both should be protected on free-press grounds. But I think the former is in many respects a much more worthwhile exercise of the free press, because it involves reporting on, y’know, actual important news. And I’m still waiting for a convincing explanation of why the former should be rebuked while the latter is applauded.
Yeehaw, I caught another one! 
(And jjimm: thanks! :))
The deaths have started. All or most Muslims, so far.
yeah, Hitchens hit the nail on the head. [url=“http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:7nLSX1SW4LUJ:www.asuwebdevil.com/issues/2002/11/26/opinions/333317+Miss+America+Muslim+riots&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5”]The same thing occurred when the Muslims reacted because the Western nations were planning a Miss World contest in Nigeria, and a newspaper columnist opined that Mohammed would have probably picked a wife from among the contestants.
It’s the same deal this time: corrupt, venal Arab leaders are getting the idjits all excited over the immorality of them Western debbils, keepng attention away from their corruption and venalty. And the idjits fall for it wholesale.
Kinda the way the idjits fall for it when Bush and co. flog gay marriage and whatnot to keep attention away from the way they’re robbing the middle class blind and screwing up left and right. Despots the world over love this kinda shit.
Maybe somebody posted this and I missed it but if Sharia Law forbids depictions of Mohammed then that’s a religious decree specific to Islam. Those are the rules that Muslims are supposed to follow. They are not my laws nor should I be expected to follow them. At least once a week I wash down a pork barbecue sandwich with a cold beer while listening to music. If Shari law forbids Muslims from this I could care less.
If you ask me my opinion on religion and dietary restrictions I’ll give it uncensored. This is what the cartoonists were asked to do. They attempted to point out the violent nature of Islamic extremists in today’s political climate. Rioting to protest the cartoons simply validates the view. Freedom of speech isn’t just an expression. It is the foundation of a free nation. It empowers citizens to expose the evils of the world. Those evils were exposed in the form of cartoons.
The inherit problems with the freedom of communication is the inexact nature of speech. What someone intends to convey is not always how it is perceived (not discounting the problems of translation and cultural differences). How would the public at large view a bumper sticker that read: Islam is the religion of peace and we’ll kill anyone who disagrees.
Would it be:
- A threat
- A religious edict
- Satire
- All of the above
Muslims who live under Islamic rule expect government control of their news. This is clear by their demands that Western governments apologize for the actions of a free press. There is a clear lack of understanding or respect for such a freedom. This from a region that allows the most vile characterization of Jews.
Anyone ever get tired of the ‘if this were so and so the reaction would be different’ defense?
I have seen people get mad on every example of the ‘you wouldn’t get mad if’ arguements… as well as people NOT being overly upset over every one of the ‘you would be really upset if’ arguements…
What a strawman if I ever heard one…
To the points…
CNN is being controlled by those crazy capitalists… who would rather sell time and subscriptoins… and not have to pay out for dead reporters…
Is it pretty wussy… yup… esp since it is germain to the conversation… is it ‘PC’… nope, it is CYA…
The ‘look at the evil Muslims’ thread, wears a bit thin too… you are talking about a few 10’s of thousands of a few hundreds of millions doing something (that would be ~0.01% for anyone keeping track)… I hear more hate talk (percentage wise) from ALL groups than that…
There are plenty of crazies to go around… heck the North Koreans like to have big ‘kill the americans’ protests from time to time as well (so often that it isn’t even reported anymore)… not too many Muslims there…
People rioting over ANYTHING short of supression of liberties is SILLY… there are times and places for extreame measures… but this isn’t one of them…
Now on to the ‘where were you last time the media was in this situation’…
As I recall until we found out that the report was fully false (oh yeah, no one actually destroyed any holy books), the arguements were all about how evil the US was… NOT about media needing control… BUT 48 hours later… after RIOTS… when we found out that it wasn’t true… yeah… some people were upset…
The Dutch were not disrespecting Islam… nor Muslims anymore than they are disrespecting Christians or Americans when their PRIVATELY OWNED papers print this none sense…
OH and frankly… I’m fairly certain that if the founder of the great faith of Islam is in the recieving line, in heaven… you can bet your ass he isn’t happy about suicide bombers… and him being disrepectful to his ‘followers’ for blowing up innocents, including children… would be the LEAST of their worries…
OH… and perhaps the cartoon wasn’t depicting Muhammad, the prophet as a terrorist… but rather as the TERRORISTS hiding their crimes in his name… ala, hiding the bomb in HIS turbin…
Let’s be a little more clear about what those pieces actually were. Meither one of them was intended as a deliberate insult to Christianity or to Christians. Both pieces were just attempting challenging uses of meduims in order to transcend preconceptions about them.
Take a look at Serrano’s Piss Christ. If you didn’t know exactly what that was would you think that the image was offensive?
Serrano specializes in using his own body fluids as a medium. The point with this piece is to get beyond a preconceived idea about the “meaning” of those fluids in order to see what is possible as a pure visual image.
Now here is Ofili’s The Holy Virgin Mary
Contrary to what you said, the image is not “drawn in feces,” but incorporates some bits of elephant dung as part of an overall collage. Once again, there is no attempt at insult here but (as with Serrano) there is an attempt to transcend prejudice about what the material has to mean. As with “Piss Christ,” if you don’t know what meaterials are used in this piece, you would never think the image - as an image - was offensive.
Neither of these pieces can be compared to the Mohammed cartoon which was deliberately intended to be an insult to all Muslims. That’s not to say that media organizations should not have the right to show or not show the image as they see fit, but there is no double standard here. The art pieces you refer to do not belong in the same converation as the Mohammed cartoons.
Oh just to address the Kanye West picture again (this is not directed at Sam, just at the board in general), I think it’s asinine to call that image insulting to Christians. The image makes no comment about Christ, Christianity or Christians whatsoever. It’s only a statement about Kanye West himself…who, by the way, is a Christian.
I have reviewed all of the cartoons (from links given in this topic) and have even given the interpretation that I would have taken from them…
They are no more or less insulting than those works of art
We have been in the middle of the Third World War since September 11, 2001. The problem is, far too many Westerners want to stick their heads in the sand and refuse to see it.
There’s no fucking war. Grow up.
Shit. I thought we were in the Pit. Let me rephrase that.
I do not believe we are in any sort of “war” with Islam. I find that kind of rhetoric to be over the top, inflamatory and useless. There are Muslim soldiers in American uniforms serving in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak.
Are there? That’s interesting. Can I have a cite for that?
I’d love to show it to some of my muslim friends.
Thanks.
Here ya go, gum: there are about 4000 Muslim US servicemembers currently on active duty. About a hundred of them got invited to a Ramadan Iftar celebration at the Pentagon in 2002.
And the Understanding Islam site has green-lighted the proposition from the point of view of Muslim theology:
Not with all of Islam (so I agree with you there, we can’t lump them all together), but there is the following:
An attempt by a group of people (AQ and other extremist Islamic groups) to establish a world-wide Islamic govt. (this is their stated goal) through the use of violence and any other means necessary. In addition, there is a second group of people (those that are being targetted with violence by the first group) that are resisting the efforts of the first group.
Calling it a war is certainly not outside the bounds of the definition of the war, but if you only object to lumping all of Islam together, then I agree.
Oh golly, Kimstu. Thank you!
Can’t wait to show that to my “KILL AMERICA, KILL ISRAEL” muslim friends
Wow. Pretty over-the-edge bunch of friends you have there.