Of Denmark, Islam, and caricatures

[WSUCougar]

I assume most of you have heard about the caricatures, portraying the prophet Mohammed, initially published in a Danish newspaper. Subsequently published in Norway, Germany, and France (and perhaps elsewhere), the caricatures have created a lot of hostility in Islamic countries and areas throughout the world. LOTS.

But you can read about the details elsewhere - maybe even in a thread here at FOFC, I dunno.

What I'm curious about is this: if the caricatures are so utterly blasphemous to the point of causing major international incidents, and if the concept of any image depicting the prophet Mohammed is so heinous, how can a Jordanian newspaper reprint the caricatures?
A Jordanian newspaper took the bold step of publishing three of the caricatures Thursday, saying it was reprinting them to show readers "the extent of the Danish offense."

Next to the drawings, the Arabic weekly Shihan said in a headline: "This is how the Danish newspaper portrayed Prophet Muhammad, may God's blessing and peace be upon him."
That's like saying murder is a terrible act, and then capping someone to demonstrate how awful it is.

Someone enlighten me...

[PSUColonel]

I'd like to see them

[PSUColonel]

They're probably veryfuny

[Klinglerware]

I assume most of you have heard about the caricatures, portraying the prophet Mohammed, initially published in a Danish newspaper. Subsequently published in Norway, Germany, and France (and perhaps elsewhere), the caricatures have created a lot of hostility in Islamic countries and areas throughout the world. LOTS.

But you can read about the details elsewhere - maybe even in a thread here at FOFC, I dunno.

What I'm curious about is this: if the caricatures are so utterly blasphemous to the point of causing major international incidents, and if the concept of any image depicting the prophet Mohammed is so heinous, how can a Jordanian newspaper reprint the caricatures?

That's like saying murder is a terrible act, and then capping someone to demonstrate how awful it is.

Someone enlighten me...


Pumping up your newspaper's circulation numbers. The bottom line trumps all.

[panerd]

I am amused in a sad way (same as the extreme anti-abortion nuts in this country) by the idiots who are so upset by Mohammed being portrayed as violent that they take hostages and make death threats to show their outrage.

[KWhit]

That's like saying murder is a terrible act, and then capping someone to demonstrate how awful it is.
We do that all the time. Texas especially.

[Drake]

Sounds like something is rotten in Denmark.

[Klinglerware]

I am amused in a sad way (same as the extreme anti-abortion nuts in this country) by the idiots who are so upset by Mohammed being portrayed as violent that they take hostages and make death threats to show their outrage.

Actually, the most effective way that this has been protested thus far was actually pretty non-violent. There is currently a campaign to boycott Danish goods sold in the Middle East. I heard a news story about a Danish dairy conglomerate who has been especially hurt by the boycott. It did enough damage to Danish businesses that the government actually tried to step in to try smooth things over.

http://www.dairyreporter.com/news/ng.asp?n=65478-arla-foods-middle-east-boycott

[Klinglerware]

Dola - I'd just like to point out that from a free-speech standpoint, I don't think Jyllands-Posten should have to apologize at all for what they ran with. But of course, the flip side to that is that protestors should also have every right to challenge what is printed.

[Crapshoot]

Sounds like something is rotten in Denmark.

A reference worth acknowledging, but alas, I know it won't.. :D

[Glengoyne]

We do that all the time. Texas especially.Well you have to admit it makes more sense when the person who actually committed the murder gets capped.

As for the topic. Christians in general don't seem to complain quite so much when God/Jesus is, I'll say defamed, in similar ways. I think individuals upset by this are overreacting to an extreme degree, and I find it hard to take any country seriously when they withdraw their ambassador over such a perceived sleight.

[MIJB#19]

I've seen the pics and I see nothing different than other political/religious caricatures I'm known to seeing. The moronic part is that some of the pictures are months old, but because some people found out only now it's all of a sudden a crime or something, according to some. This news has been around for a couple of days overhere. Some people threatened the entire European Union because one person made a drawing and a couple others decided to print them more than once.

Besides, the pics I've seen aren't even funny.

Where are our Danish correspondents when we need them!? ;)

[JW]

We are not talking about mere protests here. We are talking about threats of violence and armed intimidation. This is an attempt to silence free speech and a free press through intimidation. It should not be allowed to stand. The response from the West should be a strong affirmation of the free press, free speech, and free expression.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings;_ylt=Aj4GXPYqybuhMTqTA616eP.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Outrage over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad escalated in the Arab and Islamic world Thursday, with Palestinian gunmen briefly kidnapping a German citizen and protesters in Pakistan chanting "death to France" and "death to Denmark."

Palestinian militants surrounded European Union headquarters in Gaza, and gunmen burst into several hotels and apartments in the West Bank in search of foreigners to take hostage.

In Iraq, Islamic leaders urged worshippers to stage demonstrations from Baghdad to the southern city of Basra following weekly prayer services Friday. Afghanistan and Indonesia condemned the drawings, and Iran summoned the Austrian ambassador, whose country holds the EU presidency.

The issue opened divisions among European Union governments. Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik said EU leaders have a responsibility to "clearly condemn" insults to any religion. But French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said he preferred "an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship."

Sarkozy joined journalists in rallying around the editorial director of France Soir, who was fired by the newspaper's Egyptian owner. France Soir and several other newspapers across Europe reprinted the caricatures this week in a show of support for freedom of expression.

The cartoons were first published in September in a Danish newspaper, touching off anger among Muslims who knew about it. The issue reignited last week after Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador to Denmark.

The Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, had asked 40 cartoonists to draw images of the prophet. The purpose, its chief editor said, was "to examine whether people would succumb to self-censorship, as we have seen in other cases when it comes to Muslim issues."

Islamic law, based on clerics' interpretation of the Quran and the sayings of the prophet, forbids depictions of the Prophet Muhammad and other major religious figures — even positive ones — to prevent idolatry. Shiite Muslim clerics differ in that they allow images of their greatest saint, Ali, the prophet's son-in-law, though not Muhammad.

Critics say the drawings were particularly insulting because some appeared to ridicule Muhammad. One cartoon showed the prophet wearing a turban shaped as a bomb.

France's Grand Rabbi Joseph Sitruk said he shared Muslim anger.

"We gain nothing by lowering religions, humiliating them and making caricatures of them. It's a lack of honesty and respect," he said. He said freedom of expression "is not a right without limits."

In the Arab world, a Jordanian newspaper, Shihan, took the bold step Thursday of running some of the drawings, saying it wanted to show its readers how offensive the cartoons were but also urging the world's Muslims to "be reasonable." Its editorial noted that Jyllands-Posten had apologized, "but for some reason, nobody in the Muslim world wants to hear the apology."

Hours later, the Jordanian government threatened legal action against Shihan, and the owners of the weekly said they had fired its chief editor, Jihad al-Momani, and withdrawn the issue from sale.

The outrage Thursday was most tangible in the Palestinian territories, where Norway and Denmark closed diplomatic offices after masked gunmen threatened to kidnap foreigners in Gaza.

Palestinian gunmen in the West Bank searched several hotels, and a German citizen was briefly kidnapped by gunmen from a hotel in the city of Nablus. Palestinian police freed the German, a teacher, after less than an hour.

Foreign reporters either pulled out of Gaza on Thursday or canceled plans to go to the coastal strip.

Palestinian security officials said they would try to protect foreigners in Gaza. Nineteen foreigners have been kidnapped in Gaza in recent months; all were freed unharmed.

The protests in the Palestinian territories came a week after the Islamic militant group Hamas defeated the ruling Fatah Party in parliamentary elections.

In one unusual twist, Mahmoud Zahar, a Hamas leader, visited a Gaza church Thursday and promised protection to Christians after Fatah gunmen threatened to target churches as part of their protests. Zahar offered to dispatch gunmen from Hamas' military wing, the Izzedine al Qassam Brigades, to guard the church.

"You are our brothers," Zahar told Father Manuel Musallam of the Holy Family Church.

In Gaza City, a dozen gunmen linked to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas' defeated Fatah Party surrounded the EU Commission's local office.

One of the militants, flanked by two masked men with assault rifles, said the governments of Germany, France, Norway and Denmark must apologize for the cartoons by Thursday evening. If no apology is issued, the gunmen said they would target citizens of the four countries and shut down media offices, including the French news agency.

"Any citizens of these countries, who are present in Gaza, will put themselves in danger," the gunman said.

About 10 armed Palestinians gathered later at the French cultural center in Gaza City and warned of a "tough response" to any further disparagement of Muhammad.

Only a few dozen foreigners from the targeted countries were in Gaza on Thursday. Many others pulled out in recent months, following a spate of abductions of foreigners by Fatah-linked gunmen.

Danish and French members of an international observer team at the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt stayed away from Gaza on Thursday, and instead worked from the group's headquarters in the Israeli town of Ashkelon, said a spokesman, Julio de La Guardia.

Gunhild Forselv, spokeswoman for the international mission in the West Bank town of Hebron, said she was in touch with community leaders and was not concerned for the safety of the 72-member observer force, which includes 21 Norwegians and 11 Danes. "We don't feel threatened," she said.

The EU's election observers were winding down operations, as planned, said Mathias Eick, who is German. He said the Gaza office had been closed and that 49 observers were in Ramallah. "There were security risks even before the election and nothing has changed," he said.

Norway closed its representative office in the West Bank to the public because of the threats, but said the 23-member staff remained on the job.

The Danish Foreign Ministry in Copenhagen said all Danes, except for two diplomats, have left the West Bank and Gaza in recent days. The Danish representative office in the West Bank was to be closed Friday because of the threats, a diplomat said.

In Nablus, gunmen from the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a violent Fatah offshoot, went to four hotels and told staff they must not host Europeans from the targeted countries. The gunmen said they searched two apartments for foreigners to kidnap, but didn't find any. Foreigners now have three days to leave town, the gunmen said in an impromptu news conference after their fruitless search.

[sterlingice]

Because no one ever makes fun of religious figures :rolleyes:

http://dts.ystoretools.com/1165/images/250x1000/sopajevssagr.jpg


SI

[-Mojo Jojo-]

These countries protesting this are making serious political mistake. George Bush has tried as hard as he can to get Europe to sign on with his war on terror and he has failed. Europe has been far more sympathetic to muslims and arabs than the US. But trying to tell all these European countries that they no longer have the right to free speech when it offends muslims is going to drive that support away faster than they can say Mohammed. This is a weak hand that is being severely overplayed. Where Bush failed, bullshit like this might succeed.

[Solecismic]

At some point, you have to realize that the bully is never going to be your friend, even when you hand over your lunch money willingly every day and you do his homework.

Some day you're going to inadvertently insult him and he's still going to pound you into the dirt.

[Cotton]

Salmon Rushdie is still alive. And his death warrant was probably great P.R. Though, I'm sure he soiled a few pairs of drawers at first.

[ISiddiqui]

These countries protesting this are making serious political mistake. George Bush has tried as hard as he can to get Europe to sign on with his war on terror and he has failed. Europe has been far more sympathetic to muslims and arabs than the US. But trying to tell all these European countries that they no longer have the right to free speech when it offends muslims is going to drive that support away faster than they can say Mohammed. This is a weak hand that is being severely overplayed. Where Bush failed, bullshit like this might succeed.Europe is more symphatic to Muslims?! What? Have you seen France? Or, say, the ghettos in Germany and Sweden? The US integrates Muslims, Europe segregates them. I'd say the US is far more sympathetic to Muslims than Europe (generally speaking) is.

[Klinglerware]

I've seen the pics and I see nothing different than other political/religious caricatures I'm known to seeing. The moronic part is that some of the pictures are months old, but because some people found out only now it's all of a sudden a crime or something, according to some. This news has been around for a couple of days overhere. Some people threatened the entire European Union because one person made a drawing and a couple others decided to print them more than once.

Besides, the pics I've seen aren't even funny.

Where are our Danish correspondents when we need them!? ;)

Yes, which is why the newspaper shouldn't have apologized. On the radio, the Danish editor was on explaining that the cartoons were in line with the material that they post targeting other issues. So, instead of apologizing, they should have ramped up the edginess of cartoons, especially against controversial Christian issues to hammer the point that they were equal opportunity.

I remember when I was in college, one of the campus publications published a rather graphic cartoon depicting Jesus having anal sex with God (or an altar boy, it was years ago and I forget which). It barely got much of a reaction at all from the campus community. Why? Because that type of editorial cartoon was par for the course for that publication so nobody thought twice about it. If you do controversial cartoons every day against multiple targets, the people will come to expect it and eventually will cease to be so outraged.

[Cotton]

It barely got much of a reaction at all from the campus community. Why? Because that type of editorial cartoon was par for the course for that publication so nobody thought twice about it.
Or maybe just because it was in a college publication to begin with. I didn't know anyone ever read those things until now... or did you just look at the picture?

[MIJB#19]

These countries protesting this are making serious political mistake. George Bush has tried as hard as he can to get Europe to sign on with his war on terror and he has failed. Europe has been far more sympathetic to muslims and arabs than the US. But trying to tell all these European countries that they no longer have the right to free speech when it offends muslims is going to drive that support away faster than they can say Mohammed. This is a weak hand that is being severely overplayed. Where Bush failed, bullshit like this might succeed.
Don't throw all European countries on one trash pile called Europe, there is no such a thing as 'Europe' on this matter. Some countries traditionally have goverments who would follow Bush (or any other US preisdent) without thinking about the consequences (UK, Netherlands, a.o.) and some will be against him no matter what (France, Germany, a.o.). And even these examples aren't always appliciable.

Europe is more symphatic to Muslims?! What? Have you seen France? Or, say, the ghettos in Germany and Sweden? The US integrates Muslims, Europe segregates them. I'd say the US is far more sympathetic to Muslims than Europe (generally speaking) is.Again, please don't throw all European countries (governments) on one pile of garbage.

Overhere in Maassluis we have such a muslim ghetto. The muslim groups live together and seperated (Moroccans and Turkish basically seperated). In the 1970's the government thought that getting people with the same origins to live together was the best way to go. There are the normal problems that come around with ghetto's, but it's not centered to just the muslims who live there. A big group of muslims fit in well into the Dutch community here.

Sure, also in the Netherlands some extremist muslims abuse their freedom of speech and religion to preach against freedom of speech and religion. But these extremists life in every religion. The problem is that the attention is centered around the (anti-)muslim movement. For Christ's sake, some political party in the house of representatives here wants all women stripped from their rights to vote, but they fly by under the radar right now.

[KeyserSoze]

I always defend the right to the free speecho (like this) even I don't like the message.

[Tekneek]

Ok, Muslims, it is time to grow up. It's time to get a sense of humor, even regarding your own religion.

[WSUCougar]

What I'm curious about is this: if the caricatures are so utterly blasphemous to the point of causing major international incidents, and if the concept of any image depicting the prophet Mohammed is so heinous, how can a Jordanian newspaper reprint the caricatures?
Anybody want to take a crack at this from a logic standpoint?

[Tekneek]

Anybody want to take a crack at this from a logic standpoint?

It is ok to do that if your purpose is to inform, rather than to demean? Or, they have a double standard and Muslims are allowed to do something that non-Muslims cannot? The truth is probably a mix of the two.

[Brillig]

For those interested in the origins of the drawings:

The drawings were first published in September in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. The issue reignited last week after Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador to Denmark and many European newspapers reprinted them this week.


The Jyllands-Posten had asked 40 cartoonists to draw images of the prophet. The purpose, its chief editor said, was "to examine whether people would succumb to self-censorship, as we have seen in other cases when it comes to Muslim issues."
It seems that one way or another the newspaper was determined to create controversy - which I defend their right to do. It's rather amusing that Western governments are now falling over themselves (including ours, btw) to condemn these drawings.

While recognizing the importance of freedom of the press and expression, State Department press officer Janelle Hironimus said these rights must be coupled with press responsibility.


"Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable," Hironimus said. "We call for tolerance and respect for all communities and for their religious beliefs and practices."
Still waiting for someone to call on these enraged Muslim communities to practice tolerance and respect.

[cuervo72]

A reference worth acknowledging, but alas, I know it won't.. :D

Bah, he didn't even state the quote right.

[Crapshoot]

Bah, he didn't even state the quote right.

To think, perchance to dream about getting it right might be nice, but I think the change (like mine) was intentional.. :D

[st.cronin]

Still waiting for someone to call on these enraged Muslim communities to practice tolerance and respect.

Don't hold your breath. There's a very well established double standard there.

[Tekneek]

It seems that one way or another the newspaper was determined to create controversy - which I defend their right to do. It's rather amusing that Western governments are now falling over themselves (including ours, btw) to condemn these drawings.

Shameful that Western governments, supposedly proud of their freedoms, would condemn such a thing. The Middle East is already in charge.

[cuervo72]

To think, perchance to dream about getting it right might be nice, but I think the change (like mine) was intentional.. :D

Aye...there's the rub I suppose.

[sterlingice]

Shameful that Western governments, supposedly proud of their freedoms, would condemn such a thing. The Middle East is already in charge.*sigh*

SI

[Drake]

Aye...there's the rub I suppose.

All of this misquoted Shakespeare should be copied into the Ping: Non-scientists thread.

[KWhit]

Anybody want to take a crack at this from a logic standpoint?
Actually, my flippant remark equating this to our capital punishment policy isn't too far off, I don't think.

We, as a nation, say that killing a human being is wrong (even if they want to end their own life). However, we condone killing in certain circumstances in order to do two things:
1) Punish the guilty
2) To deter others from committing certain crimes

I imagine the newspaper sees this issue in a similar way. They likely feel they are punishing the parties that offended them by showing the cartoons in order to create more anger at the papers that printed them. It's one thing to read about something that is offensive, but it won't affect you the same as seeing it. Showing the cartoons created a greater reaction than just reporting on them would have. Therefore, it punishes the papers that printed them and deters other papers from doing something similar down the road.

[Tekneek]

Therefore, it punishes the papers that printed them and deters other papers from doing something similar down the road.

It's unfortunate that this doesn't inspire more of it. If nearly every newspaper in the 'West' ran the caricatures on the front page for the next week, what would anybody really do about it?

[WSUCougar]

I imagine the newspaper sees this issue in a similar way. They likely feel they are punishing the parties that offended them by showing the cartoons in order to create more anger at the papers that printed them. It's one thing to read about something that is offensive, but it won't affect you the same as seeing it. Showing the cartoons created a greater reaction than just reporting on them would have. Therefore, it punishes the papers that printed them and deters other papers from doing something similar down the road.
I agree with your general line of thinking, but what differentiates it in this case, at least as far as I can tell, is that creating caricatures of Mohammed is not simply something that "angers" Muslims. It is complete and utter blasphemy. I am trying to discern the difference between something that angers people to the point of creating international incidents over it, and something that is so heinous from a religious standpoint that it does so.

[Crapshoot]

I agree with your general line of thinking, but what differentiates it in this case, at least as far as I can tell, is that creating caricatures of Mohammed is not simply something that "angers" Muslims. It is complete and utter blasphemy. I am trying to discern the difference between something that angers people to the point of creating international incidents over it, and something that is so heinous from a religious standpoint that it does so.

No, you have a point. No defense, but my understanding of Christianity is that this would be a "lesser" crime from a Christian theological standpoint than an Islamic one. The Jordanian newspaper's logic (tortured as it may be) might be that they are providing access to what the blasphemy was, not engaging in it themselves.

[KWhit]

I agree with your general line of thinking, but what differentiates it in this case, at least as far as I can tell, is that creating caricatures of Mohammed is not simply something that "angers" Muslims. It is complete and utter blasphemy. I am trying to discern the difference between something that angers people to the point of creating international incidents over it, and something that is so heinous from a religious standpoint that it does so.
It's doublethink. Don't you think that killing is considered heinous from a religious standpoint here? Hell, it's in the 10 commandments!

[Drake]

After reading today's article on usatoday.com, all I have to say is:

Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

[thrym]

It's doublethink. Don't you think that killing is considered heinous from a religious standpoint here? Hell, it's in the 10 commandments!

Isn't it '...thou shall not commit murder...'?

The "State" gets away with it because they call it an execution and its a form of justice...but then there is abortion...is that murder or justice...or a different can of worms all together?

Not to go TOO far off topic here, how is it that it would have been legal for Lacy Petersen to abort her child the day before she was murdered by Scott, but Scott gets a double murder conviction because she didn't? Double standards if you ask me...but back to the other important stuff...thanks for letting me vent!

[Tekneek]

Not to go TOO far off topic here, how is it that it would have been legal for Lacy Petersen to abort her child the day before she was murdered by Scott, but Scott gets a double murder conviction because she didn't?

She was 7 and a half months pregnant. I do not believe you can get an abortion in California that late in the pregnancy.

[thrym]

She was 7 and a half months pregnant. I do not believe you can get an abortion in California that late in the pregnancy.

Your probably right, I just figured of ALL the states that would allow "Partial-Birth" abortions on request, CA would...so THAT example wouldn't be correct but I think in a general sense(change the names to protect my ignorace) it still stands...

[KWhit]

Isn't it '...thou shall not commit murder...'?
Depends on the translation, I think, but I have seen it both ways.

[Tekneek]

While recognizing the importance of freedom of the press and expression, State Department press officer Janelle Hironimus said these rights must be coupled with press responsibility.

"Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable," Hironimus said. "We call for tolerance and respect for all communities and for their religious beliefs and practices."

I really don't think the press of every community on the planet must concern themselves with the religious beliefs and practices of every other community on the planet.

EDIT...

"Whoever defames our prophet should be executed," said Ismail Hassan, 37, a tailor who marched through the pouring rain along with hundreds of others in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

"Bin Laden our beloved, Denmark must be blown up," protesters in Ramallah chanted.

...

"If they want a war of religions, we are ready," Hassan Sharaf, an imam in Nablus, said in his sermon.

"We are ready to redeem you with our souls and our blood our beloved prophet," they chanted. "Down, Down Denmark."

And so we see again the dangers of wrapping yourself up in religious dogma. You want people to die for caricatures of a religious figure.

[Glengoyne]

... Europe has been far more sympathetic to muslims and arabs than the US. ...I really don't think this is the case at all. There are a lot of european countries that are coming pretty close to openly discriminating against Muslims. The French with their ban on Head dresses and veils in schools. One of the Nordic countries, I think, is in the middle of passing a law preventing the wearing of Burkhas(sp?)

I don't think Europe in general treats either Jews or Muslims with the same equality they experience here in the US.

[Klinglerware]

Not to go TOO far off topic here, how is it that it would have been legal for Lacy Petersen to abort her child the day before she was murdered by Scott, but Scott gets a double murder conviction because she didn't? Double standards if you ask me...but back to the other important stuff...thanks for letting me vent!

To indulge you a bit with the partial thread-jack--I can't believe they charged Scott Peterson with a double murder, and got away with it without much controversy. It does sound a bit politically motivated to me.

[Klinglerware]

After reading today's article on usatoday.com, all I have to say is:

Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

Yep, as I alluded to in an earlier post, instead of apologizing the paper should have run something like a cartoon of Jesus molesting an altar boy (doesn't have to be graphic, but suggestive enough to get the message across), or something along those lines. That would be a satirical way of pointing out a serious issue in the Catholic Church (on par with the violence and Islam cartoon) and would support the paper's claim that they engage in equal opportunity satire.

[Super Ugly]

The media here in the UK has decided not to broadcast or publish the cartoons (which is, I think, a very good move), but I have seen a few of them, including the bomb-as-turban picture. I've been following the debate over the past couple of days (there's been little talk of anything else), and - issues of free speech aside - I can't see any redeeming satirical value in these cartoons. They're not funny, and they don't offer anything to the 'debate' - they're crude, badly-drawn cheap shots that wouldn't be out of place on the walls of a public toilet. We can say 'grow up' to those who've been offended, but they're well within their rights to be mad as hell right now (although that's not to excuse the gunman-militia crap, of course).

[biological warrior]

It's funny how the media portrays these gatherings as ''protests'' while a bunch of Christians and Catholics protesting similar issues would be called ''out of touch'' and/ or vrackpots.

[Honolulu_Blue]

It's funny how the media portrays these gatherings as ''protests'' while a bunch of Christians and Catholics protesting similar issues would be called ''out of touch'' and/ or vrackpots.Really? Can you give me any examples of the mainstream media portraying Christian/Catholic protestors protesting something that is strictly forbidden under their religion as "out of touch" and/or crackpots? If I recall, just a few weeks back there were a ton of Christian and Catholic protestors in DC (pro-lifers) during the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I don't recall any mainstream media outlets ever referring to them as "out of touch" or crackpots.

Poor the Christians! Such a hard life here in America. So persecuted and put upon by that vile and all powerful media. If only Christians had some voice in the government maybe things would be different. If only there were Christians in seats of power, perhaps this parade of horribles that befalls them in America would not be happening! Woe be them!

FYI: Most Catholics I know are under the impression they are Christians.


I have no sympathy for these protestors. I am all for freedom of speech, it's just the Christian persecution complex in America just sticks in my craw.

[Cotton]

Yep, as I alluded to in an earlier post, instead of apologizing the paper should have run something like a cartoon of Jesus molesting an altar boy (doesn't have to be graphic, but suggestive enough to get the message across), or something along those lines. That would be a satirical way of pointing out a serious issue in the Catholic Church (on par with the violence and Islam cartoon) and would support the paper's claim that they engage in equal opportunity satire.
Oh, yeah. That'd be the perfect answer. Why not show a swastica on day three? Let's just piss everyone off to show that we piss everyone off. Vapid.

[sterlingice]

Really? Can you give me any examples of the mainstream media portraying Christian/Catholic protestors protesting something that is strictly forbidden under their religion as "out of touch" and/or crackpots? If I recall, just a few weeks back there were a ton of Christian and Catholic protestors in DC (pro-lifers) during the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I don't recall any mainstream media outlets ever referring to them as "out of touch" or crackpots.Oh, c'mon. When they protest, yeah, they're treated as ok protesters with a right to free speech. When they start blowing up abortion clinics, they're effin' nuts. I think the line here is pretty broad- you start breaking the law, you're a nut.

SI

[Solecismic]

In 2004, he had 16 touchdowns and 1,405 receiving yards. This past season, just 750 yards and four touchdowns.

Clearly, at 32, Muhammad is in decline, and I see nothing wrong with poking a little fun in his direction.

[Gallifrey]

Ahh...once again...religion and anger...the great human weakness.

[Gallifrey]

In 2004, he had 16 touchdowns and 1,405 receiving yards. This past season, just 750 yards and four touchdowns.

Clearly, at 32, Muhammad is in decline, and I see nothing wrong with poking a little fun in his direction.


But??? That number he wears must MEAN something! Don't know what...yet...but give it time and we will thing of something. Then look out! Ahh!! HA! I knew that it meant something about something that would mean something to someone so we can be mad about whatever.

[Klinglerware]

Oh, yeah. That'd be the perfect answer. Why not show a swastica on day three? Let's just piss everyone off to show that we piss everyone off. Vapid.

Actually, I think it would be thought provoking. If the newspaper's aim is to inspire debate about the nexus of religion, censorship, and offensiveness then having parallel blasphemous Christian imagery would be just the thing. For those raised in a Christian/pseudo-Christian culture who say that the angered muslims should simply get over the Mohammed caricatures, comparative imagery more salient to one's own religious beliefs may add some perspective to the debate.

[Marc Vaughan]

I don't think Europe in general treats either Jews or Muslims with the same equality they experience here in the US.
You can't indicate that 'Europe' is any particular way about any aspect of society - European countries vary hugely and as usual in life even with a country you'll find vast differences between areas due to social and economic differences amongst other things.

(for instance go to the 'boon docks' of Norfolk and peoples attitude is often much more insular than in the rest of England ... simply because people from those areas are often less travelled and cosmopolitan than most of the country (before anyone from England hassles me for knocking Norfolk - I'm a Norfolk yokel born and bred :D))

[KWhit]

Ahh...once again...religion and anger...
Two great tastes that taste great together!

[Klinglerware]

Two great tastes that taste great together!

Less filling!

[Honolulu_Blue]

Oh, c'mon. When they protest, yeah, they're treated as ok protesters with a right to free speech. When they start blowing up abortion clinics, they're effin' nuts. I think the line here is pretty broad- you start breaking the law, you're a nut.

SI
Didn't argue that and never would.

But the post I was responding was painting with a very broad brush it appeared to me.

[Drake]

Does anyone actually have a link to these offensive caricatures? I can't seem to find one, but I don't speak Danish, so maybe that's why.

Edit: Nevermind. I found them at wikipedia.

[Cotton]

If the newspaper's aim is to inspire debate about the nexus of religion, censorship, and offensiveness then having parallel blasphemous Christian imagery would be just the thing.But the newspaper's aim is probably just to sell more newspapers.

[Cotton]

In 2004, he had 16 touchdowns and 1,405 receiving yards. This past season, just 750 yards and four touchdowns.

Clearly, at 32, Muhammad is in decline, and I see nothing wrong with poking a little fun in his direction.
Corey Dillon is Allah's profit?

Wait... Dillon had 13 touchdowns...

Never mind... close, though!

[Honolulu_Blue]

Oh, c'mon. When they protest, yeah, they're treated as ok protesters with a right to free speech. When they start blowing up abortion clinics, they're effin' nuts. I think the line here is pretty broad- you start breaking the law, you're a nut.

SI
Further, the comment was referring to the media's portrayl of the people, not what you or I think of them. Heck, breaking the law or not, I think most religious fanatics are "crackpots", "nutjobs", "'effin nuts", or what have you. I still can't recall the mainstream media ever referring to any protests by Christians (no matter how violent) as being the work out of crackpots or people being "out of touch."

[Drake]

An interesting perspective from the Kuwait Times:

hxxp://www.kuwaittimes.net/Navariednews.asp?dismode=article&artid=471797949

Egypt coordinates with Kuwait over offensive caricatures


By Hassan A Bari
KUWAIT: Muslims worldwide are outraged and offended by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten's publication of 12 caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), said Egyptian Ambassador to Kuwait Abdurraheem Shalabi speaking at a press conference at the Egyptian Embassy in Daiya yesterday. The newspaper published the offending cartoons in September but Muslim outrage only erupted last week. Exactly why anger and outrage took so long to come to the fore remains unclear. Ambassador Shalabi said that Cairo has been protesting against the cartoons since early October. He noted that the Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Ghait instructed Egypt's Ambassador to Copenhagen Mona Omar in September to contact her Muslim colleagues in Denmark to arrange for a unified Muslim stance in protest.

The ambassador also said there had been a great deal of coordination and cooperation between Kuwaiti and Egyptian diplomats in confronting this "outrageous blasphemy" using all possible diplomatic channels.
Describing it as "quiet diplomacy," Shalabi said "I myself have been on constant contact with Kuwaiti officials at the Foreign Ministry for coordination and combining efforts in defending our Holy Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) since early October."
"Unfortunately, the Danish premier's response to a meeting requested by Muslim diplomats in Copenhagen was very frustrating," noted the ambassador. "He even refused to meet them," said Shalabi adding that the Danish Ambassador to Cairo was summoned by the Foreign Ministry and formally informed of Egypt's protest and rejection of such handling of very sacred and solemn matters related to any religion, not only Islam.
Shalabi added that Egyptian Asst Foreign Minister for European Affairs wondered during his meeting with the Danish Ambassador to Cairo whether Copenhagen would take the same passive attitude had the issue involved the so-called anti-Semitism.
Responding to questions about other diplomatic channels used, the ambassador said the Arab League, the Islamic Conference Organisation, the United Nations and the Human Rights Commissioner in Geneva had all been notified and reminded that the passive official Danish attitude in this regard actually contradicted Articles 19 and 29 of the International Human Rights Charter and Article 19 of the International Civilian and Political Rights Pledge, that state clearly the freedom of expression is not an abstract, it should not violate others' rights.
"The Arab and Muslim group of diplomats in New York met and discussed an Egyptian suggestion of introducing a draft resolution incriminating religious contempt to be discussed in the UN General Assembly," said Shalabi. The diplomats also suggested further amendments to another draft resolution presented by Holland to "get rid of all forms of inclemency and racism based on religion or beliefs' to highlight governments' duty to ensure respect to all religions and beliefs."
Commenting on the recent statement of the Danish Premier Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Shalabi stressed that it was only one step forward or a "step towards the right path."
"In fact, the Danish premier expressed his regrets that we 'Muslims' have been offended by the cartoons, and that he felt sorry for us," stressed Shalabi underscoring that the statement mainly focused on the fact that the Danish government had no authority over their free press.
'The speech used in the premier's statement is so feeble if it was meant to express apology," noted Shalabi highlighting that condemning such an act was what Muslims needed to calm down the soaring public opinion and the rages flaring daily all over the Muslim world.
"In this regard, I'd like to mention that two members in the Egyptian-Danish Institute who visited Copenhagen lately have told many TV and media interviews that Egypt totally rejected Denmark's passiveness despite the fact that it had signed over seven international pledges and agreements demanding government interference to stop any blasphemy or abuse of religions or cultures. Denmark has simply violated those charters," said Shalabi.
The ambassador refused to comment after French and German newspapers yesterday republished the offending cartoon. The French newspaper France Soir and German dailies Welt and Berliner Zeitung reprinted caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) wearing a turban transformed into a bomb.
Incidentally, Rami Lakah, a 41-year-old Egyptian holding French nationality, owns France Soir. Lakah, a Christian businessman and former parliamentarian fled Egypt without paying off over LE 1.2 billion he had borrowed from local Egyptian banks.
"I think that the French government will take a much more positive attitude and will not let such publication go unaccounted for," said Shalabi.
The widening dispute over the caricatures has drawn in partisans on both sides. Yesterday Syria recalled its ambassador to Denmark and Internet websites have posted threats purportedly from insurgents in Iraq calling for attacks against Denmark. Chechen guerrilla leader Shamil Basayev also threatened to respond to the offensive cartoons. In an Internet statement published yesterday, he said, "The commander Basayev has condemned the derogatory cartoons of Prophet Mohammed ... which are an insult to Muslims worldwide," said the statement posted on a website that has previously listed purported announcements by Chechen rebels.
In Kuwait, rumours and SMS text messages have claimed that Danes in Copenhagen would hold a protest on Feb 4 where they would burn the Holy Quran and condemn Muslims and the Prophet (PBUH). The Ambassador noted that the Danish Premier has denied plans for such a protest.

[Drake]

Completely unrelated: hxxp://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/archive/001946.html

Legohammed.

[Cotton]

Further, the comment was referring to the media's portrayl of the people, not what you or I think of them. Heck, breaking the law or not, I think most religious fanatics are "crackpots", "nutjobs", "'effin nuts", or what have you. I still can't recall the mainstream media ever referring to any protests by Christians (no matter how violent) as being the work out of crackpots or people being "out of touch."
When was the last time you saw a Christian good-guy in a mainstream television drama or movie? They get to be the bad guys all the time, though. Or the butt of jokes on the comedy shows and movies. What would people like Steven Colbert do without Christians to satirize?

I love Colbert, by the way. And am pretty much desensitized to the daily mockery of religious people in the media. Doesn't really bother me any more. It's usually kind of funny, though it was creepy and annoying in the movie Dogma. What a pile of steaming crap that was.

Just think it's odd that people can't see it. Maybe they're desensitized, too.

[Drake]

For some really interesting commentary: hxxp://www.alghurabaa.co.uk/index.html

I bet no one in Denmark would have ever guessed they'd be lumped into a "Trinity of Evil". If there's no such thing as bad press, Denmark is gettting the best free PR in its history.


Edit for some hxxp'ing. Sorry. Should have done that when I first posted.

[Drake]

When was the last time you saw a Christian good-guy in a mainstream television drama or movie?

7th Heaven?

[Cotton]

7th Heaven?
LOL! Okay! There's one. You've just about doubled my ratio there. No further comment. ;)

[Drake]

You should have specified good television. In that case, I've got nothing.

[Cotton]

For some really interesting commentary: http://www.alghurabaa.co.uk/index.html

Wow. Nice link. Gee... uh... I guess they really don't like gay people either!

[Honolulu_Blue]

When was the last time you saw a Christian good-guy in a mainstream television drama or movie? They get to be the bad guys all the time, though.
Bad guys? What examples of openly Christian bad guys are there in manstream television drama or movies?

Other than the obvious "7th Heaven" (as Drake pointed out), I think I recall some movie about Jesus that was pretty popular. There was the "Chronic(what!?)cles of Narnia" that had heavy Christian themes and symbolism. Temple Page (Sean Patrick Thomas) in the District was a devout Christian. What about "Touched By An Angel"? Those "Left Behind" movies are straight to DVD fare, but are uber-Christian.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I also forgot Mr. Ecko. How could I forget Mr. Ecko? He's a bad, bad man (in the Michael Jackson sense of the word) and a Christian. He's got that Holy Stick 'o' Beatens.

Wasn't the president on West Wing a devout Catholic?

What about that short lived show "Miracles?"

There was also "Joan of Arcdia", no? (Though she shouldn't be allowed to be mentioned in the same post as Mr. Ecko.)

Also, I would argue, that it is safe to assume that almost every character in mainstream television dramas (or comedies) (or movies) is presumed Christian until demonstrated otherwise. How many prime time network shows have leading characters who aren't Christian? How many movies in the past year? I only sat this because it can't just be a coincidence when TV characters celebrate Christmas in very special Christmas episodes every year. Or when they get married they do so in churches. I don't think it's too far a reach to assume those people are, indeed, Christian. I don't see too many TV families celebrating Ramadan or Passover or getting married in ashrams or mosques very often. Maybe they are, but I guess I'm missing those shows.

For movies there was Susan Sarandon in "Dead Man Walking" and Matthew Mcmowhatishisname in "Contact."

Also John Stewart or Colbert making a joke about what a jackass Pat Robertson is does not constitute the persecution of Christians. It constitutes making a joke about a jackass who uses religion to justify his extremist views.

Anyway, we've strayed waaaay too far off topic here... Back to the whole cartoon thing.

[Cotton]

Bad guys? What examples of openly Christian bad guys are there in manstream television drama or movies?

Other than the obvious "7th Heaven" (as Drake pointed out), I think I recall some movie about Jesus that was pretty popular. There was the "Chronic(what!?)cles of Narnia" that had heavy Christian themes and symbolism. Temple Page (Sean Patrick Thomas) in the District was a devout Christian. What about "Touched By An Angel"? Those "Left Behind" movies are straight to DVD fare, but are uber-Christian.
LOL! Please. Don't even try this. If you can't see it you can't see it. I could assail you with example after example, but I don't have the time or interest. Watch Jon Stewart tonight and you'll already have your list of pro's outnumbered in one half hour of knee slappin comedy. And movies about Jesus are not the same as Movies that feature the holier-than-though neighborhood preacher that has some evil dastardly secret. Or make fun of nuns in a convent or Catholic School, or the born again kid from school that's a total intolerant bitch.

Or any number of now common stereotypical swipes at Christians. You're just embarrassing yourself with this barrel scraping. ;)

[Cotton]

And I like Jon Stewart. And Steven Colbert. It's not that big of a deal. But to say that there are no media portrayals of conservative Christians as whack-jobs and extremists is just plain silly.

[Honolulu_Blue]

LOL! Please. Don't even try this. If you can't see it you can't see it. I could assail you with example after example, but I don't have the time or interest. Watch Jon Stewart tonight and you'll already have your list of pro's outnumbered in one half hour of knee slappin comedy. And movies about Jesus are not the same as Movies that feature the holier-than-though neighborhood preacher that has some evil dastardly secret. Or make fun of nuns in a convent or Catholic School, or the born again kid from school that's a total intolerant bitch.

Or any number of now common stereotypical swipes at Christians. You're just embarrassing yourself with this barrel scraping. ;)Read my second post for the full list, which includes almost every show on TV, so I don't really think that counts as "barrel scraping."

John Stewart isn't on tonight, but I will try and catch him Monday. Hopefully "This Week In God" will be on. I love that segment.

[ISiddiqui]

LOL! Please. Don't even try this. If you can't see it you can't see it. I could assail you with example after example, but I don't have the time or interest. Watch Jon Stewart tonight and you'll already have your list of pro's outnumbered in one half hour of knee slappin comedy. And movies about Jesus are not the same as Movies that feature the holier-than-though neighborhood preacher that has some evil dastardly secret. Or make fun of nuns in a convent or Catholic School, or the born again kid from school that's a total intolerant bitch.

Or any number of now common stereotypical swipes at Christians. You're just embarrassing yourself with this barrel scraping. ;)
My apologies, but I think the only one embarrassing himself is you. You haven't brought up any examples other than Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert whose goals are to skewer everyone!

There are movies where you have a preacher who doesn't want kids to have fun (like "Footloose"), but usually in those movies, by the end, the preacher understands that its ok in the end (like "Footloose").

There are far more sympathetic Christians than 'bad' Christians in TV shows and the media. For example, one of my favorite movies in the last few years, "Master and Commander" had the entire crew fairly faithful Christians who knew Biblical stories (Jonah) and had the Captain read from the Bible went their fellows died. The Simpson's Ned Flanders is holier-than-thou, but he is generally shown in a good light (while Homer is shown to be petty for disliking him). Those are a couple examples.

[Honolulu_Blue]

And I like Jon Stewart. And Steven Colbert. It's not that big of a deal. But to say that there are no media portrayals of conservative Christians as whack-jobs and extremists is just plain silly.I agree. Who said that "there are no media portrayals of conservative Christians as whack-jobs and extremists"?

[Honolulu_Blue]

My apologies, but I think the only one embarrassing himself is you. You haven't brought up any examples other than Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert whose goals are to skewer everyone!
This is a good point. Last week on the "Daily Show", Stewart skewered Hillary Clinton, Cindy Sheehan, and Hugo Chavez. Hrmm... Maybe that doesn't really support my point all that much, considering I am pretty sure all three are Christians!

[Solecismic]

South Park is always good for a laugh at the expense of the holier than thou. Have they ever done a Mohammad episode? That would be hilarious.

My only complaint about South Park is that I need the captions on to make out much of what's being said.

[cuervo72]

I bet no one in Denmark would have ever guessed they'd be lumped into a "Trinity of Evil".

So *that's* where ez ran off to.

[DaddyTorgo]

as my mother said "they've gotta learn to relax"

i think i might put it a little differently, but the fact of the matter is that they do need to learn to adjust. they need to realize that just because they find something distasteful/wrong/blasphemous that doesn't prohibit anyone else from doing it.

and if you're muslim and you don't agree with that...pack your shit up and move back to one of the theocratic muslim nations where it won't happen. the rest of the world certainly isn't obligated to tiptoe around them and hew to muslim/jewish/catholic standards of what is blasphemous/distasteful.

the fact that many muslim nations can't/won't recognize this is one of the chief reasons why Islam has "bloody borders" with the west, and will continue to be a religion that is not warmly welcomed by the western world.

[st.cronin]

as my mother said "they've gotta learn to relax"

i think i might put it a little differently, but the fact of the matter is that they do need to learn to adjust. they need to realize that just because they find something distasteful/wrong/blasphemous that doesn't prohibit anyone else from doing it.

and if you're muslim and you don't agree with that...pack your shit up and move back to one of the theocratic muslim nations where it won't happen. the rest of the world certainly isn't obligated to tiptoe around them and hew to muslim/jewish/catholic standards of what is blasphemous/distasteful.

the fact that many muslim nations can't/won't recognize this is one of the chief reasons why Islam has "bloody borders" with the west, and will continue to be a religion that is not warmly welcomed by the western world.

Yes, and it's not as though this is something new, either.

[Coder]

To be honest this whole issue frustrates me on several levels. I believe in the freedom of speech, and that includes the possibility of making fun of whoever however.

Now, out of self-preservation, I'd most likely stay away from making too much fun of Muslims, because I know they have a tough time dealing with it like mature adults. However, if I can make fun of Jesus and people who don't like it will only get a bit upset, while others will laugh, I think that I should be able to make fun of Mohammed without fearing a colombian necktie.

If these radicals, because that's what the protesters are (in reality a minority, but since the press wants news, they're blowing it out of proportions as usual), would just calm the hell down and realize that the same papers are not only kidding with Mohammed, they're also making fun of the jew with the beard, the earth would be a better place to live. They need to understand that just because people A doesn't worship the same gods/prophets as people B, they're not any worse neighbours than those who share the same religion.

Let people worship whatever religion they want to.. whatever I believe won't hurt you.. ok?

The fact that these people can't separate Norway from Denmark doesn't exactly help them in their quest for acceptance.. they're currently boycotting all Scandinavian products, including butter from Norway.. which will lead them to an extreme shortage of butter within the next week.. bright.. very bright..

[KWhit]

LOL! Please. Don't even try this. If you can't see it you can't see it. I could assail you with example after example, but I don't have the time or interest. Watch Jon Stewart tonight and you'll already have your list of pro's outnumbered in one half hour of knee slappin comedy. And movies about Jesus are not the same as Movies that feature the holier-than-though neighborhood preacher that has some evil dastardly secret. Or make fun of nuns in a convent or Catholic School, or the born again kid from school that's a total intolerant bitch.

Or any number of now common stereotypical swipes at Christians. You're just embarrassing yourself with this barrel scraping. ;)
You're right. I just don't know how a Christian gets by in this country.

[Drake]

You're right. I just don't know how a Christian gets by in this country.

We kill the infidels, silly. We just do it quietly.

Or we get the government to do it for us.

[JW]

So a group of my fundamentalist buddies and I got really pissed at The Book of Daniel, so we got our guns and stormed the local TV station, trashing the place and burning the satellite van and shouting DEATH TO HOLLYWOOD AND THE TV NETWORKS. So we took the weatherman hostage and held him until the show was cancelled. However, nothing they can do make up for what they have done. We have declared war on HOLLYWOOD AND THE TV NETWORKS and are urging our friends to kill anyone associated with that unholy cabal.

We have a perfect right to do this since the show insulted our religion. We of course respect freedom of expression, but that must be balanced against respect for our religious beliefs. If you do not agree, then DEATH TO YOU.

[Drake]

So a group of my fundamentalist buddies and I got really pissed at The Book of Daniel, so we got our guns and stormed the local TV station, trashing the place and burning the satellite van and shouting DEATH TO HOLLYWOOD AND THE TV NETWORKS. So we took the weatherman hostage and held him until the show was cancelled. However, nothing they can do make up for what they have done. We have declared war on HOLLYWOOD AND THE TV NETWORKS and are urging our friends to kill anyone associated with that unholy cabal.

We have a perfect right to do this since the show insulted our religion. We of course respect freedom of expression, but that must be balanced against respect for our religious beliefs. If you do not agree, then DEATH TO YOU.

My pastor is going to be so pissed off when he finds out you stole his notes for Sunday's sermon.

[Warhammer]

FYI: Most Catholics I know are under the impression they are Christians.


As defined by Princeton word net:

christian (adj.) "following the teachings or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ"

I used the adjective definition because the noun definition was a bit circular in definition.

Anyhow, Catholics ARE Christians. They hold that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and follow his teachings.

[sterlingice]

So a group of my fundamentalist buddies and I got really pissed at The Book of Daniel, so we got our guns and stormed the local TV station, trashing the place and burning the satellite van and shouting DEATH TO HOLLYWOOD AND THE TV NETWORKS. So we took the weatherman hostage and held him until the show was cancelled. However, nothing they can do make up for what they have done. We have declared war on HOLLYWOOD AND THE TV NETWORKS and are urging our friends to kill anyone associated with that unholy cabal.

We have a perfect right to do this since the show insulted our religion. We of course respect freedom of expression, but that must be balanced against respect for our religious beliefs. If you do not agree, then DEATH TO YOU.:D

SI

[sterlingice]

South Park is always good for a laugh at the expense of the holier than thou. Have they ever done a Mohammad episode? That would be hilarious.

My only complaint about South Park is that I need the captions on to make out much of what's being said.Mohammad was one of the "Super Best Friends" in that episode.

SI

[Honolulu_Blue]

As defined by Princeton word net:

christian (adj.) "following the teachings or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ"

I used the adjective definition because the noun definition was a bit circular in definition.

Anyhow, Catholics ARE Christians. They hold that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and follow his teachings.
Yeah. That's, uh, pretty much what I said. I was just trying to throw in the funny there, mate.

[Warhammer]

This is one of the HUGE problems I have with Islam. Christianity teaches you to challenge your faith so that you strengthen it. Sometimes, a challenge to your faith might be a satirical cartoon, it might be a life event, it might be any of a number of different things. You search your soul, consult the tenants of your faith, and come to a conclusion. Some people lose their faith, while others strengthen their faith. So in Western Culture you wind up with two camps, the faithful and the non-believers (before any one takes too many shots, I realize this is a gross simplification at 10:00 PM).

However, in Islam, this seems to not be the case. You are told not to question your faith. You should not question Mohammed. You shall not satirize Mohammed. If anyone does so, they are blasphemous and belong in the House of War, etc. Because of this, there is no questioning of faith. The result is a faith where you are told what to believe, but there is no critical thinking. It creates a faith that is easy to lead astray because the masses are taught not to question their Imams or the faith.

Should this be a surprise? Not if you realize that Mohammed was a warrior. The creed is a warrior's creed, why else split the world into the House of Submission and the House of War. But that is getting a bit off-topic. Any successful military leader understands that you need to have full authority, and anything that undermines it is bad. Therefore, I can see Mohammed ponder, "Question me? That is right out. And no satirical pictures of me either!" Again, this is some of what I was thinking about earlier today while driving back from a trade show, so some of it is half-cooked, but is a good starting point.

[Warhammer]

Yeah. That's, uh, pretty much what I said. I was just trying to throw in the funny there, mate.

Sorry, I've seen way too much Catholic bashing lately (in person, on the net, etc.), and its been bugging the daylights out of me. Much of it from people who don't have a clue, so I overreacted.

Sorry.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Sorry, I've seen way too much Catholic bashing lately (in person, on the net, etc.), and its been bugging the daylights out of me. Much of it from people who don't have a clue, so I overreacted.

Sorry.
No worries. I'm a reformed Catholic, so while I don't really buy into it nowadays, I was baptized, had first communion, gave confession, and was even confirmed. I have a pretty strong grasp of the basics.

[ISiddiqui]

This is one of the HUGE problems I have with Islam. Christianity teaches you to challenge your faith so that you strengthen it. Sometimes, a challenge to your faith might be a satirical cartoon, it might be a life event, it might be any of a number of different things. You search your soul, consult the tenants of your faith, and come to a conclusion. Some people lose their faith, while others strengthen their faith. So in Western Culture you wind up with two camps, the faithful and the non-believers (before any one takes too many shots, I realize this is a gross simplification at 10:00 PM).

However, in Islam, this seems to not be the case. You are told not to question your faith. You should not question Mohammed. You shall not satirize Mohammed. If anyone does so, they are blasphemous and belong in the House of War, etc. Because of this, there is no questioning of faith. The result is a faith where you are told what to believe, but there is no critical thinking. It creates a faith that is easy to lead astray because the masses are taught not to question their Imams or the faith.

Should this be a surprise? Not if you realize that Mohammed was a warrior. The creed is a warrior's creed, why else split the world into the House of Submission and the House of War. But that is getting a bit off-topic. Any successful military leader understands that you need to have full authority, and anything that undermines it is bad. Therefore, I can see Mohammed ponder, "Question me? That is right out. And no satirical pictures of me either!" Again, this is some of what I was thinking about earlier today while driving back from a trade show, so some of it is half-cooked, but is a good starting point.Wait... are you really saying this after knowing the history of Christianity? Blasphamy was a crime in Christian Europe and if you critized the Pope, you may have found yourself excommunicated and/or burned as a heretic.

I'm sorry, but unquestioned adherence to a faith is not Islam's alone and Christianity hasn't been free of that vice.

[Drake]

Yes, yes, and democracy has killed its share of innocents because those who practiced it wanted to eradicate dictatorships. Claiming that "people who believed this did something heinous 500 years ago, so the idea is obviously a bad one" is not sound logic. Unquestioned adherence to faith was less a product of Middle Ages Xianity than it was of a socio-political reality that discouraged independent thought on behalf of an economically enslaved lower class.

[Drake]

dola...

And if you think that means I'm just defending Christianity, you're not paying attention.

[ISiddiqui]

Yes, yes, and democracy has killed its share of innocents because those who practiced it wanted to eradicate dictatorships. Claiming that "people who believed this did something heinous 500 years ago, so the idea is obviously a bad one" is not sound logic. Unquestioned adherence to faith was less a product of Middle Ages Xianity than it was of a socio-political reality that discouraged independent thought on behalf of an economically enslaved lower class.It is kind of difficult to claim a faith has taught to 'challenge your faith' when you see the history of it. Most of Christian history has been intollerant of dissent and "challenges to the faith". The only 'challenging' or accepting blasphemy has happened very recently, as Christianity lost its irontight hold on the populace.

It appears that only Judaism, of the great monotheistic religions, has avoided such dogmatic views dominating most of its history (as it has encouraged scholarly debate almost since the time of Moses).

[JPhillips]

I would challenge that Judaism hasn't seen such dogmatic views. They came a long time ago, but the early Jewish history in the Holy Land is all about exterminating rival groups because they weren't of the right religion/ethnicity. There's a great History Channel documentary on Old Testament wars that really clarifies the brutality of early Jews.

[MrBigglesworth]

This is one of the HUGE problems I have with Islam. Christianity teaches you to challenge your faith so that you strengthen it. Sometimes, a challenge to your faith might be a satirical cartoon, it might be a life event, it might be any of a number of different things. You search your soul, consult the tenants of your faith, and come to a conclusion. Some people lose their faith, while others strengthen their faith. So in Western Culture you wind up with two camps, the faithful and the non-believers (before any one takes too many shots, I realize this is a gross simplification at 10:00 PM).

However, in Islam, this seems to not be the case. You are told not to question your faith. You should not question Mohammed. You shall not satirize Mohammed. If anyone does so, they are blasphemous and belong in the House of War, etc. Because of this, there is no questioning of faith. The result is a faith where you are told what to believe, but there is no critical thinking. It creates a faith that is easy to lead astray because the masses are taught not to question their Imams or the faith.

Should this be a surprise? Not if you realize that Mohammed was a warrior. The creed is a warrior's creed, why else split the world into the House of Submission and the House of War. But that is getting a bit off-topic. Any successful military leader understands that you need to have full authority, and anything that undermines it is bad. Therefore, I can see Mohammed ponder, "Question me? That is right out. And no satirical pictures of me either!" Again, this is some of what I was thinking about earlier today while driving back from a trade show, so some of it is half-cooked, but is a good starting point.
Recently, Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Seminary in Minneapolis, upon hearing that a gay actor was in a religiously themed movie, End of the Spear, wrote:
Granted, we must not overreact. And it would probably be an overreaction to firebomb these men’s houses.

But what they have done is no mistake. It is a calculated strategy.

This is not a private peccadillo. It is a very public scandal.

...The production company is trying to huckster money from evangelicals that they should really be getting from NAMBLA.

Meekness? Once we have caught our breath, the only ordinate response is deliberate fury.

If this were a Matthew 18 situation, private pleading would be appropriate. It is not.

If this were a Galatians 2:11 situation, we would withstand these debasers of the faith to their faces because they are to be blamed.

If this were a 1 Corinthians 5 situation, we could simply deliver such ones unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, the “ones” including Messrs. Green, Hannon, Ewing, and (Steve) Saint.

I wonder, however, whether this situation does not fit the parameters of Galatians 1:8-9. Does this kind of confusion actually alter the gospel itself? I am tempted to think that it does—and does it deliberately, “with malice aforethought.” If so, then we know what is required of us.
Recently, a major news network show host said the following about a supposed War on Christmas:
See, I think it's all part of the secular progressive agenda to get Christianity and spirituality and Judaism out of the public square. Because if you look at what happened in Western Europe and Canada, if you can get religion out, then you can pass secular progressive programs like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage, because the objection to those things is religious- based, usually.
Islam does not have the market cornered on crazies. I didn't even get into Robertson or Falwell. If you can paint Muslims as being whackos with a broad brush, I can take the same brush and paint Christians in this country as whackos.

[ISiddiqui]

I would challenge that Judaism hasn't seen such dogmatic views. They came a long time ago, but the early Jewish history in the Holy Land is all about exterminating rival groups because they weren't of the right religion/ethnicity. There's a great History Channel documentary on Old Testament wars that really clarifies the brutality of early Jews.Ok, I'll conceed that in the early years after the creation of the empire they were brutal. They did engage in debates about the faith though (as seen in the Talmud), so there was some challenge (even though it didn't go all the way) to the belief system.

[Drake]

It is kind of difficult to claim a faith has taught to 'challenge your faith' when you see the history of it. Most of Christian history has been intollerant of dissent and "challenges to the faith". The only 'challenging' or accepting blasphemy has happened very recently, as Christianity lost its irontight hold on the populace.

It appears that only Judaism, of the great monotheistic religions, has avoided such dogmatic views dominating most of its history (as it has encouraged scholarly debate almost since the time of Moses).

Apparently you missed the Protestant Reformation. :)

[ISiddiqui]

Apparently you missed the Protestant Reformation. :)No, actually the Protestant Reformation makes my point for me. You see how that challenge to the faith was dealt with. I seem to recall much warfare, including the first Pan-European war, which lasted 30 years. The history of England after Henry VIII for the next few hundred years is not one that shows Christians trying to challenge themselves and search their souls. It shows great intolerance and a punishing of those who question the faith. In fact, I believe that's who the Puritans ended up in Massachusetts.

This challenging of the faith in Christianity and being able to question the faith without being excommunicated or having a war declared against you is a very recent phenomenon.

[Drake]

Oh, and the whole Spanish Inquisition. (No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition, after all).

The Inquisition was invariably called to answer charges of heresy -- that is, a doctrine of blasphemy. If there is no heretical challenge to authority, there is no need for the Inquisition. Given that the Church has at times ruthlessly put down heresies (too numerous to mention), it seems to me that at the everyman level, attempts to challenge, adapt or transform one's faith has always been a facet of Xianity.

That isn't to say that it's the sole purview of Xianity, only that history as we know it has relied too heavily on the tales of the institutionalized Church to characterize what was going on.

Now, I won't argue that the Christianity has been any more or less brutal in its heyday than Islam (or any other religion living or dead), only that the brutality has less to do with faith of any stripe than with political power --which has as much to with faith as a fish with a bicycle.

[Drake]

Ah, I think I see where I'm missing you. You're placing the blame on faith. I'm placing the blame on political maneuvering within a faith structure (in this case, the Church). I don't see the religion itself as being at fault.

[ISiddiqui]

Oh, and the whole Spanish Inquisition. (No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition, after all).

The Inquisition was invariably called to answer charges of heresy -- that is, a doctrine of blasphemy. If there is no heretical challenge to authority, there is no need for the Inquisition. Given that the Church has at times ruthlessly put down heresies (too numerous to mention), it seems to me that at the everyman level, attempts to challenge, adapt or transform one's faith has always been a facet of Xianity.

That isn't to say that it's the sole purview of Xianity, only that history as we know it has relied too heavily on the tales of the institutionalized Church to characterize what was going on.

Now, I won't argue that the Christianity has been any more or less brutal in its heyday than Islam (or any other religion living or dead), only that the brutality has less to do with faith of any stripe than with political power --which has as much to with faith as a fish with a bicycle.Yes, like I stated, Christianity has had a history of being intolerant to challenges to the faith. It led to brutal put downs.

Saying that these brutal put downs are evidence of Christianity teaching one to challenge your faith seems utterly ridiculous to me. The challenge was met with harsh reprisal by those that ran the faith. It appears to show me that Christianity was not for challenging of the faith in that era and proved it by putting down those who tried.

It'd be like saying that when Muslim states killed those who wanted to liberalize the faith (and will sometimes jail those nowadays that do) that it showed that Islam was for challenging the faith!

[JPhillips]

If the Reformation is an example, than the Shia split within Islam must also be an example.

[ISiddiqui]

Ah, I think I see where I'm missing you. You're placing the blame on faith. I'm placing the blame on political maneuvering within a faith structure (in this case, the Church). I don't see the religion itself as being at fault.The Church defines Christianity if Muslim states define Islam. After all, Islam has numerous sects as well.

[Drake]

What you seem to be saying is that the institution of the Catholic Church hasn't supported liberalization. That I can agree with. History bears it out.

But the Catholic Church is not synonymous with Christianity. The Catholic Church is a subset of Christianity, as Protestantism is a subset. Christianity is the sum total of the practitioners of the religion and the teachings on which it is based. If the people practicing the religion are challenging its tenets and liberalizing its doctrines, then the religion itself accepts that.

The oppression seems to me to be of a top down model rather than a grassroots self-censorship (though I'm sure some of that occurred too -- reference the various witch trials of the Middle Ages). The Church in Rome apparently wasn't a big fan of heretics challenging the faith, but the long list of heretical movements that continued up to and beyond the Protestant Reformation suggests to me that challenge and adaptation have historically been a very real part of the Christian experience.

Now, what the Western media doesn't show me is whether or not this is also true for Islam. I would strongly suspect that it is. A few militant mouthpiece organizations blather on about "kill this" and "kill that" and ramp up a few thousand of their nutty zombie followers when they want to make some noise on a topic, but most Muslims spend the majority of their time trying to figure out how the teachings of the Quran impact/influence their daily lives and exactly what it really means to be a child of God.

[Drake]

The Church defines Christianity if Muslim states define Islam. After all, Islam has numerous sects as well.

I wouldn't go this far. For most of its history, the Church is not analagous to Muslim states. France, Germany, England, the Ottoman Empire, etc. are analagous to Muslim states -- which is to say that while the leadership *said* that they were doing this or that in the name of Faith, what they were usually doing was using the language of faith to justify political maneuvering.

And in that regard too, I'm sure that today's Muslim states and the Middle Ages/Enlightenment -- hell, Modern day -- Western states have a great deal in common.

[Drake]

I'm enjoying our conversation, ISiddiqui, but it's 1:15 AM here. I'm going to have to hit the sack. (The kids are going to be up eeeaarly.) If you post after this, we'll have to pick it up later.

[ISiddiqui]

What you seem to be saying is that the institution of the Catholic Church hasn't supported liberalization. That I can agree with. History bears it out.

But the Catholic Church is not synonymous with Christianity. The Catholic Church is a subset of Christianity, as Protestantism is a subset. Christianity is the sum total of the practitioners of the religion and the teachings on which it is based. If the people practicing the religion are challenging its tenets and liberalizing its doctrines, then the religion itself accepts that.

The oppression seems to me to be of a top down model rather than a grassroots self-censorship (though I'm sure some of that occurred too -- reference the various witch trials of the Middle Ages). The Church in Rome apparently wasn't a big fan of heretics challenging the faith, but the long list of heretical movements that continued up to and beyond the Protestant Reformation suggests to me that challenge and adaptation have historically been a very real part of the Christian experience.

Now, what the Western media doesn't show me is whether or not this is also true for Islam. I would strongly suspect that it is. A few militant mouthpiece organizations blather on about "kill this" and "kill that" and ramp up a few thousand of their nutty zombie followers when they want to make some noise on a topic, but most Muslims spend the majority of their time trying to figure out how the teachings of the Quran impact/influence their daily lives and exactly what it really means to be a child of God.Well, like I said, if you consider heretical movements to suggest that challenge has been a part of the Christian experience, then the heretics (the Shi'ite split is the big one, but there are a lot of sects in the Muslim world... and a number of schools of thinking in each sect) in Islam suggest that Islam has taught their followers to challenge the faith as well.

However, I don't think that is what the original poster meant when he said Islam teaches doctrinaire viewpoints while Christianity teaches dialogue.

And I think it is fine to asser the Catholic Church as an example of all Christianity itself for a certain period of time. The entire world Christendom consisted of the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church from the Great Schism (and before that it was just Catholicism from Theodosius's reign). Neither sect tolerated the other (and not until John Paul II's papacy did they really make up) to the Reformation and they both acted similarly in respect to herecies.

[ISiddiqui]

I wouldn't go this far. For most of its history, the Church is not analagous to Muslim states. France, Germany, England, the Ottoman Empire, etc. are analagous to Muslim states -- which is to say that while the leadership *said* that they were doing this or that in the name of Faith, what they were usually doing was using the language of faith to justify political maneuvering.

And in that regard too, I'm sure that today's Muslim states and the Middle Ages/Enlightenment -- hell, Modern day -- Western states have a great deal in common.Well the closest thing to the Church in Christianity are Muslim states. The reason being that there is no heirarchy in the Muslim faith and so when different imams would say the Koran said different things, the state would be the arbiterer.

Also there is a good argument to be made that the Vatican (or more properly, the Papal States) was the first modern state. After inviting the Franks to kick out the Lombards from Italy, the Pope had sizable estates and they were governed under a very advanced (for the time) system of law and state organization. The Kingdoms of Europe took the example of the Papal States to move from trials by ordeal (and the such) to modern type of legal structures.

[ISiddiqui]

I mostly lurk, but man, when you go to Hell, I want a front row seat asshole. Either you just forced your 16 yr old girlfriend to get an abortion or you just murdered your 16 yr old girlfriend and are looking for precendence for your defense case.

Lacy Peterson
Scott (what the fu** is he your best friend?)

Abortion (legally sanctioned, though not universally approved by many religions)
Murder X2 (pretty much recognized by anyone with any common sense as evil regardless of religious affiliation)

Jackoff!Please, continue to lurk. Your type of asshole-ness is not something we need (do you normally go up to people and accuse them of murder because they asked a simple question?). Btw, it was a very valid question (though I disagree with the point).

[MIJB#19]

Please, continue to lurk. Your type of asshole-ness is not something we need (do you normally go up to people and accuse them of murder because they asked a simple question?). Btw, it was a very valid question (though I disagree with the point).
Please, take a look in the mirror. Your type of inconsistency is not something we need (You talk on and on about the history of Europe as if you know what you;re talking about, yet your first comments about the present of Europe reveal you know nothing about that.)

You might have made some good points, but your generalization of European governments made it impossible for me to really take you serious.

[Klinglerware]

Please, take a look in the mirror. Your type of inconsistency is not something we need (You talk on and on about the history of Europe as if you know what you;re talking about, yet your first comments about the present of Europe reveal you know nothing about that.)

You might have made some good points, but your generalization of European governments made it impossible for me to really take you serious.

Ahh, it's the "only experts can be taken seriously" syndrome. Very few of us have Ph.D.'s in any of the topics we discuss here, nothing would be said here if "expert knowledge" was a prerequisite for speaking one's mind. Let's try to practice what we preach when talking about freedom of expression and let's not try to shut down discourse (even for trollish and semi-trollish comments).

[Honolulu_Blue]

Please, take a look in the mirror. Your type of inconsistency is not something we need (You talk on and on about the history of Europe as if you know what you;re talking about, yet your first comments about the present of Europe reveal you know nothing about that.)

You might have made some good points, but your generalization of European governments made it impossible for me to really take you serious.I'm standing up for the Squiddi Man here. Just because he made a generalization in one post does not discredit everything else he has to say either on that topic (modern Europe) or related to that topice (the history of Christianity in Europe). People make generalizations all the time. Some are more accurate than others, for sure, and some may be a mistake, but that does not discredit every (or any other) very well-stated, well-argued, well-reasoned, and factually accurate argument/point raised like this Isquiddi has raised above.

Seriously. People make generalizations all the time. I lived in Europe for three years and I lost count of the conversations I had were people made generalizations about "Americans." It's just a way to raise points and while not 100% accurate, there is usually some truth to it and can be further clarified.

To draw any kind of parallel between the points raised by ISiddiqui in this thread (and almost any other thread for that matter) and jamesUMD's post is just wrong.

So long as my man isn't posting about films, I think he can look in the mirror and be proud. http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[MIJB#19]

HB, Klingerware, I'm not talking about a 'normal' generalization or lack of expertise, I'm talking about throwing 50 governments on one pile. It simply doesn't work that way in 'Europe'. ISiddiqui didn't respond when I called him out on that, yet does comment about someone else not trying to mingle in the discussion.

[Honolulu_Blue]

HB, Klingerware, I'm not talking about a 'normal' generalization or lack of expertise, I'm talking about throwing 50 governments on one pile. It simply doesn't work that way in 'Europe'. ISiddiqui didn't respond to two people who called him out on that, yet does comment about someone else not trying to mingle in the discussion.I agree with that, MIJB. Totally. All 25 (EU countries) are vastly different with vastly different governments. While people often like to throw the European blanket over all of them, it just doesn't work that way (even if you try to go down the whole Old Europe/New Europe retardedness).

While ISiddiuqi may not have yet responded to those who called him out on it, I still don't think that generalization invalidates the rest of his (well-argued, well-reasoned, factually-supported) points. Nobody's perfect.

[Tekneek]

Not totally related to this, but we drove by a church last night that had this message on their sign :


DEFEAT BIN LADEN
BRING A MUSLIM TO CHRISTIANITY


I hope they still have it up on Monday when I will be able to get over there with a camera.

[MIJB#19]

While ISiddiuqi may not have yet responded to those who called him out on it, I still don't think that generalization invalidates the rest of his (well-argued, well-reasoned, factually-supported) points. Nobody's perfect.
You have a good point here.

Still, the problem(s) of what this topic is about is centered around stereotypes and generalizations. Let's burn flags of Texas because one man in Texas ever decided to draw a weed-smoking, whore-visiting, baby-killing man, who's getting married to another man, while wearing wooden shoes and sticking their fingers in the dike to save the entire country.


By the way, I fixed my line, I quoted him by name, but Marc V didn't, he actually qouted someone else about the Europe-generalization.

[Klinglerware]

HB, Klingerware, I'm not talking about a 'normal' generalization or lack of expertise, I'm talking about throwing 50 governments on one pile. It simply doesn't work that way in 'Europe'. ISiddiqui didn't respond when I called him out on that, yet does comment about someone else not trying to mingle in the discussion.

That is certainly a good point. Stereotyping unfortunately is such an automatic cognitive process, everyone gets caught up in it from time to time. You should definitely call the person on it when it happens, but ISiddiqui had a lot of very good points too--the discussion is certainly thought provoking and worth keeping going...

[Solecismic]

The year is 2006. I do not see the point in bringing up every atrocity committed in the name of every religion over the last 10,000 years. It's a different world in the age of information.

The extremist Muslim attitude that everyone must conform to their standards or be executed is archaic. It can not work in a global society. We just have too much information about our neighbors. That's fine if you're Mrs. Kravitz and your world view is limited to what you can see when you peep through your living room curtains. It's not fine when you can tune to CNN and see into living rooms one hemisphere removed.

These people (and when I say that, I mean those who are willing to take to the streets in violence, not Muslims who advocate peace) are at war with the rest of the world. We can not appease them without adopting their laws. They will always be offended by something we do.

In many of these stories, you'll notice that the violence often peaks after a visit to the mosque. The violence is advocated and commanded, by their religious leaders. It's just a different world out there. Our current 2006 religious paradigm in America has no connection to what's taking place in these mosques.

[Glengoyne]

You can't indicate that 'Europe' is any particular way about any aspect of society - European countries vary hugely and as usual in life even with a country you'll find vast differences between areas due to social and economic differences amongst other things.

(for instance go to the 'boon docks' of Norfolk and peoples attitude is often much more insular than in the rest of England ... simply because people from those areas are often less travelled and cosmopolitan than most of the country (before anyone from England hassles me for knocking Norfolk - I'm a Norfolk yokel born and bred :D))In my mind I actually excluded Britain from this classification of Europe in General. Perhaps I should have said it is my impression that Europe in general, and a few countries in specific have been recently been rather intollerant of muslims and Jews.

If a nation has gone overboard with treating people fairly it is yours. The disease of Political Correctness runs amok in Great Britain!

[JW]

The year is 2006. I do not see the point in bringing up every atrocity committed in the name of every religion over the last 10,000 years. It's a different world in the age of information.

The extremist Muslim attitude that everyone must conform to their standards or be executed is archaic. It can not work in a global society. We just have too much information about our neighbors. That's fine if you're Mrs. Kravitz and your world view is limited to what you can see when you peep through your living room curtains. It's not fine when you can tune to CNN and see into living rooms one hemisphere removed.

These people (and when I say that, I mean those who are willing to take to the streets in violence, not Muslims who advocate peace) are at war with the rest of the world. We can not appease them without adopting their laws. They will always be offended by something we do.

In many of these stories, you'll notice that the violence often peaks after a visit to the mosque. The violence is advocated and commanded, by their religious leaders. It's just a different world out there. Our current 2006 religious paradigm in America has no connection to what's taking place in these mosques.

This was begging to be said. As I was scanning through page 3, I was getting ready to write the same thoughts, though probably not as well as you did.

We live in the present, and although the past can be instructive to the present, past wrongs of one group do not excuse the present wrongs of another group.

And the anger some Christians in the US feel about certain movies and TV shows is not acted out in mass armed demonstrations, violent intimidation, kidnappings, declarations of war and jihad, and hate that is being directed toward a few brave newspaper editors in Western Europe.

I find it so interesting that so many on the left are rushing to the defense of the hate-mongers among Islam and distancing themselves from freedom of expression.

So what exactly are we left with when anything that offends anyone is removed from the public square?

[Buccaneer]

Because some of us in the faith act in love and forgiveness, as Christ did. We were never called to be vengeful or hate others for their actions.

[st.cronin]

I find it so interesting that so many on the left are rushing to the defense of the hate-mongers among Islam and distancing themselves from freedom of expression.

I've begun to think it's all about anti-Zionism. There's no other explanation for the double standard applied to muslim/arab behavior that makes sense to me.

[JW]

Let's go back to the reason that the cartoons were published in the first place:

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/blog/2005/12/denmark_art_and.html

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/blog/blogimages/denmark_turban.jpg

It was a provocation, (Flemming ) Rose (culture editor of the Jyllands-Posten) told me. A provocation to artists, writers, translators, actors and comedians who, he believes, are intimidated when it comes to addressing issues that some Muslims might find offensive.

"The point was that we have some people who submit themselves to self-censorship," Rose said. "And they are doing so not out of respect, but out of fear."

Rose listed several recent incidents to illustrate his point. After the 7/7 bombings in London, the city's Tate Gallery canceled plans to exhibit John Latham's "God Is Great," which featured a Koran (along with the Bible and Talmud) for fear of offending Muslims. And the translator of a new book by Dutch politician Aayan Hirsi Ali, a vocal critic of radical Islam, requested anonymity fearing the reaction of militants. (This is perhaps understandable. Ali previously collaborated on a film about Islam with Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, who was murdered on the streets of Amsterdam by a young Muslim man who claimed the film was blasphemous).

But it was the complaint by a Danish children's author who said he couldn't find anyone to illustrate his book about Mohammed that finally led Rose to take action. Free speech, he felt, was being compromised.


Denmark is home to around 200,000 Muslims, the majority of which live in Copenhagen.

"We thought we could dilute this fear by including several artists," Rose said. So he invited members of the Danish association of cartoonists to draw Mohammed the way they see him. Of the 40 members, 12 responded. Their submissions ranged from the predictably offensive, a portrait of the prophet where his turban carries a bomb with a burning fuse to the alternatively prescient, a picture of a young schoolboy named Mohammed standing in front of a blackboard where written in Persian with Arabic letters it says, "Jyllands-Posten's journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs."

Well, it doesn't seem to have had the desired effect, but we should remember that the cartoons were a reaction to the intolerance of radical Islam and the climate of fear radical Islam created. And the issue has graphically illustrated the hate that is fundamental to fundamentalist Islam.

[ISiddiqui]

Please, take a look in the mirror. Your type of inconsistency is not something we need (You talk on and on about the history of Europe as if you know what you;re talking about, yet your first comments about the present of Europe reveal you know nothing about that.)

You might have made some good points, but your generalization of European governments made it impossible for me to really take you serious.Oh please, I made ONE generalization and even SAID I was making a generalization (I said "generally speaking" or something like that). I don't think the generalization is all that off for the major European countries. I mean, I could have listed Germany, France, Sweden, etc, etc, but I chose to be a bit quicker.

I don't get this 'crusade' (no pun intended wrt this thread) based on the fact that I generalized a few major European countries as "Europe". People generalize, but few admit it. I make no bones that I have.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, it doesn't seem to have had the desired effect, but we should remember that the cartoons were a reaction to the intolerance of radical Islam and the climate of fear radical Islam created. And the issue has graphically illustrated the hate that is fundamental to fundamentalist Islam.However, the one with the turban as bomb is incredibly offensive to Muslims and even moderate Muslims are pissed about that one. There is no justification for violence as a result of this, but that picture does not show the tolerance of the Western world either.

I'd imagine that a paper that printed a cartoon with Jesus going after underage boys would be met with tons of protests (and probably death threats) as well.

[JW]

However, the one with the turban as bomb is incredibly offensive to Muslims and even moderate Muslims are pissed about that one. There is no justification for violence as a result of this, but that picture does not show the tolerance of the Western world either.

I'd imagine that a paper that printed a cartoon with Jesus going after underage boys would be met with tons of protests (and probably death threats) as well.

I see no parallel between the seething hate within the masses of fundamentalist Islam and Christians in the West, not even within fundamentalist Christianity. I do not recall masses of people marching through the streets screaming "Death to (fill in the blank)" after 9/11. I see things regularly in Western popular culture that could be considered blasphemous portrayals of Christ and Christian symbols (South Park, for example), but I see no reaction parallel to the hate-filled protests going on in Islamic countries this week. Most are met with no protest at all. And there was lots of hand-wringing when mild protests and letter-writing and threats of boycotts occured over for example the The Book of Daniel. There simply is no parallel, and it is foolish to try to say there is. An idiot like Pat Robertson making stupid comments, a radical here or there committing an occasional violent act, does not even begin to equate to what is going on in the Muslim world right now.

I also see no responsibility for those in the West to accept that the Islamic notion of what is acceptable portrayal of their religious figures trumps our ideals of free speech, the free press, and freedom of expression. You speak of tolerance. Where is the tolerance in fundamentalist Islam?

There is indeed no justification for what is going on in Syria and elsewhere in reaction to those cartoons.

[st.cronin]

Mapplethorpe is a good example - there were much louder protests from the free speechers than the Christians when he depicted Christ submerged in urine.

[Klinglerware]

Mapplethorpe is a good example - there were much louder protests from the free speechers than the Christians when he depicted Christ submerged in urine.

The artist in question was not Mapplethorpe. It was Andres Serrano who received the death threats and hate mail--and presumably not from the free speechers. Those who declared war on freedom of expression and our culture that time weren't the Islamic fundamentalists...

[ISiddiqui]

Where is the tolerance in fundamentalist Islam?So if they aren't tolerant we shouldn't be either?

Really, you can't say that at least that picture wasn't offensive to any Muslim, moderate, radical, liberal, etc.

My comparison to the Christian cartoon is to show that while violence is reprehensible, the outrage is not. A similar cartoon applied to Jesus would be decried by Christians as a complete outrage, as the play with the gay Jesus was

[Solecismic]

I would guess that Piss Muhammad would be seen as considerably more offensive to Muslims than Bomb-Turban Muhammad.

In fact, one story mentioned that the Finnish newspaper had to deny it used certain cartoons, because an Arab newspaper or news source had dug up some considerably more offensive cartoons and said those were the ones printed in Finland.

I'm not buying the idea that Bomb-Turban Muhammad is some sort of ultimate insult. There do seem to be religious leaders over there who live for nothing else than to perceive some sort of insult.

[ISiddiqui]

I would guess that Piss Muhammad would be seen as considerably more offensive to Muslims than Bomb-Turban Muhammad.

In fact, one story mentioned that the Finnish newspaper had to deny it used certain cartoons, because an Arab newspaper or news source had dug up some considerably more offensive cartoons and said those were the ones printed in Finland.

I'm not buying the idea that Bomb-Turban Muhammad is some sort of ultimate insult. There do seem to be religious leaders over there who live for nothing else than to perceive some sort of insult.It is to liberal and moderate Muslims. I know that a lot of people in the ME got fed with lines that the cartoons were much worse than they actually were, but seeing a picture with Muhammed with a bomb on his head has made moderate and liberal Muslims in the West angry as well. Though they aren't calling to censor newspapers (then again, if Denmark has similar hate crimes laws as France and Germany, they would have been seriously fined for having a swastika on their front page), they aren't very happy with the pictures.

[Solecismic]

It is to liberal and moderate Muslims. I know that a lot of people in the ME got fed with lines that the cartoons were much worse than they actually were, but seeing a picture with Muhammed with a bomb on his head has made moderate and liberal Muslims in the West angry as well. Though they aren't calling to censor newspapers (then again, if Denmark has similar hate crimes laws as France and Germany, they would have been seriously fined for having a swastika on their front page), they aren't very happy with the pictures.

Actually, Germany is the only country in Europe that bans the display of a swastika.

I see your point, though that's more a sensitivity issue because of world events. And I don't think it's necessarily relevant here.

Liberal and moderate Muslims have not declared war on the rest of the world. Liberal and moderate Muslims seem to have accepted the apology from the Danish newspaper. Liberal and moderate Muslims seem to understand that detroying Denmark is not a tit-for-tat response.

I guess you could make the argument that, given the recent Catholic priest scandals, that depicting Jesus raping a little boy would generate a similar response from liberal and moderate Christians.

I just don't think it matters to the nutjacks who are burning buildings and demanding blood what the cartoons were about. Their mosques are training grounds for hate, and they will hate on command.

[Solecismic]

Dolaing as I read a little about this. The EU actually proposed a Europe-wide ban on the swastika in 2003, though it didn't get tremendous support outside of Germany and Luxembourg.

Denmark, Hungary and the UK actually led the opposition. In the UK's case, however, they might have been confused, thinking it's part of a proper prince's wardrobe.

Personally, I'm against banning symbols, banning flag-burning, etc. Better to know your enemies. People should be free to act like asshats, as long as no one is physically harmed.

[ISiddiqui]

Actually, Germany is the only country in Europe that bans the display of a swastika.

I see your point, though that's more a sensitivity issue because of world events. And I don't think it's necessarily relevant here.

Liberal and moderate Muslims have not declared war on the rest of the world. Liberal and moderate Muslims seem to have accepted the apology from the Danish newspaper. Liberal and moderate Muslims seem to understand that detroying Denmark is not a tit-for-tat response.

I guess you could make the argument that, given the recent Catholic priest scandals, that depicting Jesus raping a little boy would generate a similar response from liberal and moderate Christians.

I just don't think it matters to the nutjacks who are burning buildings and demanding blood what the cartoons were about. Their mosques are training grounds for hate, and they will hate on command.Yes, but, of course, the nutjobs live side by side with the sane Muslims in the MidEast. It's not like it is easy to isolate them out. The question is what do you do with them without killing/huring the moderate or liberal Muslims. You want to get the moderates and liberals into a position of power, but for the life of me, I can't figure out how to go about doing it aside from a long term policy (and who knows how well that'll work). The one thing is we don't want to make more conservative or reactionaries in that area. They already have enough.

Oh, and I believe France has similar laws against the swastika. And I know Sweden does... that's the excuse Paradox gave to delete any swastika post on its forums and to not include the swastika in HoI.

[Solecismic]

Sweden, France (and Denmark, for that matter) are among several European countries that have a general ban on "inciting racism by displaying symbols." I can't speak to the interpretation.

I wish I had a solution. I don't want to see the Middle East turned into a parking lot, which is what will happen if one of the nutjacks gets ahold of a nuclear weapon and uses it.

Unfortunately, the best solutions, which tend to be long-term, aren't really going to stop the immediate problem. Why aren't the liberal and moderate Iraqis, for example, doing a better job separating themselves from the others? Maybe they have more of a responsibility to stand up and cast out those who are causing the problems.

[st.cronin]

The artist in question was not Mapplethorpe. It was Andres Serrano who received the death threats and hate mail--and presumably not from the free speechers. Those who declared war on freedom of expression and our culture that time weren't the Islamic fundamentalists...

Correct - I mixed up the two names in my head. Nevertheless, I don't remember any foreign ministries of 'Christian' countries demanding that the US jail Serrano.

[Dutch]

Why aren't the liberal and moderate Iraqis, for example, doing a better job separating themselves from the others? Maybe they have more of a responsibility to stand up and cast out those who are causing the problems.

Karzai is a moderate and well-liked in Afghanistan. He's also been the victim of numerous assassination attempts on his life. I think part of the problem is killing tends to be taboo in the middle east, unless it's perceived to be in defense of the Koran or it's theocratic political leaders...

[JW]

So if they aren't tolerant we shouldn't be either?

Really, you can't say that at least that picture wasn't offensive to any Muslim, moderate, radical, liberal, etc.

My comparison to the Christian cartoon is to show that while violence is reprehensible, the outrage is not. A similar cartoon applied to Jesus would be decried by Christians as a complete outrage, as the play with the gay Jesus was

I agree that the cartoons were offensive. I would call that a given. But the reaction is the problem. And I also understand that the cartoons themselves were a reaction to and protest against fundamentalist Muslim intolerance. The reaction of fundamentalist Islam shows there is something very ugly beneath the surface there, and it cannot be blamed on outside provocations. We have a clash of cultures here, and I side with the Western value of freedom of expression when it is challenged by violence and intimidation. But not everyone values freedom of expression. The photo is from a London protest.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2006/02/03/protest1.jpg

[ISiddiqui]

I agree that the cartoons were offensive. I would call that a given. But the reaction is the problem. And I also understand that the cartoons themselves were a reaction to and protest against fundamentalist Muslim intolerance. The reaction of fundamentalist Islam shows there is something very ugly beneath the surface there, and it cannot be blamed on outside provocations. We have a clash of cultures here, and I side with the Western value of freedom of expression when it is challenged by violence and intimidation. But not everyone values freedom of expression.I don't disagree with a word you say in this post.

But I would say that there may be a lot of long term "outside provocations", by which I mean the Brits and French in drawing the borders and everyone's support for dictators in the ME during the Cold War. Not a provocation, per se, but just that we failed to take a long term view back then.

[JW]

I don't disagree with a word you say in this post.

But I would say that there may be a lot of long term "outside provocations", by which I mean the Brits and French in drawing the borders and everyone's support for dictators in the ME during the Cold War. Not a provocation, per se, but just that we failed to take a long term view back then.

And I can agree with that. The West does share in the responsibility for incubating what has become modern radical Islam. At the same time, Islam must heal itself. And the violence being used right now against the free press and free expression must not stand.

[Klinglerware]

I side with the Western value of freedom of expression when it is challenged by violence and intimidation. But not everyone values freedom of expression. The photo is from a London protest.



How is this different from Rudy Giuliani cutting off funding to the Brooklyn Museum for showing a painting of the Virgin Mary coated in feces, or congress cutting off NEA funding to artists and projects they deem "indecent" after the Piss Christ controversy?

I agree that freedom of expression should be defended at all costs. I would also argue that money is just as, if not more, effective as threats of violence in censoring artistic expression.

[st.cronin]

How is this different from Rudy Giuliani cutting off funding to the Brooklyn Museum for showing a painting of the Virgin Mary coated in feces, or congress cutting off NEA funding to artists and projects they deem "indecent" after the Piss Christ controversy?

I agree that freedom of expression should be defended at all costs. I would also argue that money is just as, if not more, effective as threats of violence in censoring artistic expression.

That comparison does not stand up. Freedom of expression is not freedom to be displayed in a museum or freedom to recieve government funds to express yourself.

On the one hand, you have the threat that your painting will not be hung in a museum. On the other hand, you have the Danish embassy on fire. The only people who would argue such an equivalency are arab apologists or anti-zionists.

[Drake]

How is this different from Rudy Giuliani cutting off funding to the Brooklyn Museum for showing a painting of the Virgin Mary coated in feces, or congress cutting off NEA funding to artists and projects they deem "indecent" after the Piss Christ controversy?

I agree that freedom of expression should be defended at all costs. I would also argue that money is just as, if not more, effective as threats of violence in censoring artistic expression.

I'd only disagree to the extent that I oppose the concept of artists being on the public dole at all. If you can't make a living from your artistic expression, either change your art, acquire the education to get a teaching position, or realize it's just a hobby and do it in your spare time. That's just me, though.

The issue of cutting off funding to a public museum because of the art they're displaying is different (imho -- I disagree with folks who apply the same standard I do above [that is, economic forces] to fundamentally educational ventures like museums.). That's an asshat move.

Then again, saying "I don't like your art so I'm going to oppose funding it" seems radically different to me than saying "I don't like your art so I'm going to kill you, your family, your neighbors and everyone who likes what you do".

[JW]

How is this different from Rudy Giuliani cutting off funding to the Brooklyn Museum for showing a painting of the Virgin Mary coated in feces, or congress cutting off NEA funding to artists and projects they deem "indecent" after the Piss Christ controversy?

I agree that freedom of expression should be defended at all costs. I would also argue that money is just as, if not more, effective as threats of violence in censoring artistic expression.

Uh, it is different.

There is no requirement or obligation for federal, state, or local funds to be used to support the arts. In fact, such funds always have the potential to taint the arts for the reason you imply, that public funding must generally produce art that the public will generally find at least marginally acceptable for that funding to continue to exist. Insult the public too much and the funding stops.

The artists who draw public funding find their art judged in the most democratic way possible. And we taxpayers have no obligation to fund art we don't like, much less find distasteful. That doesn't make us terrorists.

There is no similarity between the changing nature of public funding of the arts and the burning of th embassy. The refusal to actively support an act of free expression by funding the artist is quite different from killing the artist.

So I find your comparison fails.

[Klinglerware]

That comparison does not stand up. Freedom of expression is not freedom to be displayed in a museum or freedom to recieve government funds to express yourself.

On the one hand, you have the threat that your painting will not be hung in a museum. On the other hand, you have the Danish embassy on fire. The only people who would argue such an equivalency are arab apologists or anti-zionists.

My point is that monetary threats will be more effective than violence from abroad in supressing a work deemed offensive. Would burning an embassy overseas do anything to get "Piss Christ" removed from a museum installation? Probably not, because protesters in a far-off land have no control over a museum's finances, unless the protesters target the museums benefactors. On the other hand, people and organizations with economic leverage over that museum can exert more editorial pressure. So, if the government/organization or someone else with financial clout deems a work offensive, they are much more likely than a violent protestor in succeeding in getting the work removed.

[Drake]

True, K. But that's the way things have always worked in the economics of ideas and expression. No one is under any moral or ethical obligation to financially support ideas and expressions they disagree with. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that.

Or is your point that *they* need to realize that they'll have more success if they try to control Western values economically rather than through violence?

[Klinglerware]

Or is your point that *they* need to realize that they'll have more success if they try to control Western values economically rather than through violence?

That would be a logical conclusion. If one wants to influence western culture, one has to play by western rules--economics is the best way to achieve that end. The dairy boycott actually hurt economically and got an apology out of the Danish PM, the violence on the other hand will only serve to galvanize the Danish people.

[Drake]

The big question when it comes to economic warfare is who has the most to lose? I'm thinking that they're thinking it's them (both the religious zealots inciting the violence and the everyman participating in it). It's understandable that they feel like violence isn't just their best option, but their only option, especially in the short term.

It's one thing for Xians to get pissed off at Disney and decide they're going to boycott Disney movies (i.e. depriving themselves of an entertainment option). It's quite another thing to boycott products that you depend on to feed your family.

This is not to shit on your point, which I think is incisive, but to say that I don't know the everyman Muslim has the resources to afford to take the long view.

[Klinglerware]

The big question when it comes to economic warfare is who has the most to lose? I'm thinking that they're thinking it's them (both the religious zealots inciting the violence and the everyman participating in it). It's understandable that they feel like violence isn't just their best option, but their only option, especially in the short term.

It's one thing for Xians to get pissed off at Disney and decide they're going to boycott Disney movies (i.e. depriving themselves of an entertainment option). It's quite another thing to boycott products that you depend on to feed your family.

This is not to shit on your point, which I think is incisive, but to say that I don't know the everyman Muslim has the resources to afford to take the long view.

Very fair points. Those protesters don't seem to have too many options to voice their displeasure, unfortunately the resort to violence is probably worse than doing nothing at all. As far as the boycott goes, the consumer package goods industry is developed enough in the region that consumers probably had competitive products to choose from, or the boycott would have fallen apart.

[Solecismic]

It depends on your goal. Are you trying to shut down one particular display, or are you trying to get the entire world to cater to your views?

An artist losing a source of funding can always solicit more funds or pay for his materials (urine, some clay, whatever else he needs) on his own.

An artist losing his life can not continue his work.

I would say the threat of violence is a thousand times more powerful in the long term. The killing of Theo Van Gogh has had quite an effect on the art world - and actually ended up inspiring this whole episode in many ways.

[MrBigglesworth]

The extremist Muslim attitude that everyone must conform to their standards or be executed is archaic...We can not appease them without adopting their laws... I just don't think it matters to the nutjacks who are burning buildings and demanding blood what the cartoons were about. Their mosques are training grounds for hate, and they will hate on command.
Thank God there isn't an element in this country with that kind of archaic attitude that will not be appeased without us adopting their laws. God only knows what would happen to this country if there were those kinds of training grounds for hate here.
Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.
If the world accepts homosexuality as its norm and if it moves the entire world in that regard, the whole world is then going to be sitting like Sodom and Gomorrah before a Holy God. And when the wrath of God comes on this earth, we will all be guilty and we will all suffer for it.
AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharoah's chariotters.
The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.

[Tekneek]

When I can drive by a church that has a sign out front claiming the way to defeat Osama bin Laden is to convert Muslims to Christianity and all this nonsense about caricatures of Mohammed, I have a hard time taking either religion seriously.

[JW]

Thank God there isn't an element in this country with that kind of archaic attitude that will not be appeased without us adopting their laws. God only knows what would happen to this country if there were those kinds of training grounds for hate here.

Yes, thank God there isn't. Despite the rhetoric of idiots like Falwell and Robertson, the culture of America and the West does not permit it. The mass of fundamentalist Christians in the US do not rise up and use violence to achieve their aims. The culture of radical Islam encourages hate and acts out its hate.

[CraigSca]

Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell don't speak for me, thank you very much. However, they sure have the media's ear.

[Drake]

Not to mention, there's a long step between asserting that various things like AIDS are God's wrath directed at sin and saying "God wants me to kill you because of your sin". One philosophy puts judgment firmly in the hands of God (where it belongs, imho), while the other takes the right of mercy and grace away from God.

[Drake]

dola...

To me, this is the fundamental schism between Christianity and Islam. Christianity is a religion of a God who redeems sinners (i.e. all of us), whereas Islam remains a religion of Wrath where God only rewards the righteous and destroys the unrighteous.

[JPhillips]

Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell don't speak for me, thank you very much. However, they sure have the media's ear.

And Karl Rove's!

[sterlingice]

Well, Pittsburgh and Seattle will be hit by riots tonight, win or lose ;)

SI

[Honolulu_Blue]

I find it so interesting that so many on the left are rushing to the defense of the hate-mongers among Islam and distancing themselves from freedom of expression.
So many on the left? How many and who exactly? I haven't read much in the way of reaction on this, but I would be surprised that people would defend the violent reactions going on. As discussed above, there is a distinction between the outrage (understandable) and the expression of the outrage (burning things, violence, etc, etc). While I could see people understanding the outrage (perhaps defending it), the reactions are pretty indefensible. Personally I find both ridiculous, but that's just me.

[Wolfpack]

One thought I've had is the fact that the most severe rioting has occurred in Syria and Lebanon. Any chance pro-Syrian forces are stirring things up for whatever reason? While it is true that the Syrian army left Lebanon, I don't know how successful Lebanon has been in removing all the other "assets" Syria may have left behind. (I don't have a clue myself, but wanted to throw it out there and see if anyone else sees a possible link.)

[Honolulu_Blue]

Yes, thank God there isn't. Despite the rhetoric of idiots like Falwell and Robertson, the culture of America and the West does not permit it. The mass of fundamentalist Christians in the US do not rise up and use violence to achieve their aims. The culture of radical Islam encourages hate and acts out its hate.I agree with this. Incidents of violence committed by fundamentalist Christians are limited to a very small number of obviously sick individuals (those whole blow up abortion clinics, kill doctors who perform abortions, etc.). Those acts are very few and far between and condemed by the vast majority of fundamentalists (I hope and think).

[WSUCougar]

One almost wonders what they'd do with their time if they weren't out burning flags...

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/06/cartoon.protests/t1.irandanish.01.ap.jpg

[fantastic flying froggies]

One thought I've had is the fact that the most severe rioting has occurred in Syria and Lebanon. Any chance pro-Syrian forces are stirring things up for whatever reason? While it is true that the Syrian army left Lebanon, I don't know how successful Lebanon has been in removing all the other "assets" Syria may have left behind. (I don't have a clue myself, but wanted to throw it out there and see if anyone else sees a possible link.)
That is clearly not a coincidence...

Also not a coincidence at all, that all of this is taking place at a time where Syria is under intense international scrutiny over murders in Lebanon...and that Iran is under intense international scrutiny over nuclear matters...

[biological warrior]

I wonder if we (Americans) are hte only ones who have not seen these cartoons. Another thing: Why arent I hearing from media editors of the various papers across the nation defending their dutch brothers and their rights to print.

[MrBigglesworth]

I agree with this. Incidents of violence committed by fundamentalist Christians are limited to a very small number of obviously sick individuals (those whole blow up abortion clinics, kill doctors who perform abortions, etc.). Those acts are very few and far between and condemed by the vast majority of fundamentalists (I hope and think).
Why do you think that is? Is is because Islam, which comes from Christianity, is a religion of wrath while Christianity is a religion of peace? Or is it because the Christian religious leaders in this country use democracy to impose their morality, an avenue not available to many Muslims?

[MrBigglesworth]

So many on the left? How many and who exactly? I haven't read much in the way of reaction on this, but I would be surprised that people would defend the violent reactions going on.
That's a good point, that's JW creating a strawman. I haven't seen that opinion expressed either. Reminds me of people talking about all the people on the left not wanting to wiretap terrorists.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Why do you think that is? Is is because Islam, which comes from Christianity, is a religion of wrath while Christianity is a religion of peace? Or is it because the Christian religious leaders in this country use democracy to impose their morality, an avenue not available to many Muslims?The more I thought on it, the more I think it's the latter. The whole thing is very tied up with the socio-economic situation of many Muslims. They are poor and disenfranchised. While this doesn't excuse violent behavior, it helps explain it. I think this discussion goes back and ties in a lot of the history that Isiddiqiu was talking about. Back in the day Christian religious leaders only had access to certain tools and, therefore, used what they had. As their position changed and the world around them changed, so did their responses/actions.

[KeyserSoze]

One naive question.

The caricatures were published originally in october. And the riots are nowadays.

Maybe somebody could use these riots to strenght his position in some situation? Maybe who is near of these radicals? If he (or she) exists, could he use the willingness to negociate to improve his demands?

For me all the situation is as spontaneous as a Bolshoi coreography.

[MIJB#19]

I wonder if we (Americans) are hte only ones who have not seen these cartoons. Another thing: Why arent I hearing from media editors of the various papers across the nation defending their dutch brothers and their rights to print.I suppose you mean the danish brothers there? ;)

The caricatures were published originally in october. And the riots are nowadays.
Actually, there's something really strange about that. From what I learned, Danish based imams tried to get their sheep all angry and rioting, but somehow the Muslim in Denmark were not interested at all. You have to understand that most imams in European (yay generalization!) countries don't speak the language of the country they live in and basically are working here temporarily, trying to keep the Muslims out of the Arab countries live the Islam they way they should (in the Imam's opinion of course). After the failure in Denmark, a couple of imams decided to go back to their own roots and stir up the discussion in the Middle East. And so, half a year later, they finally found brainwashed and poor sheep willing to follow them.

Would this symbolizes a bit how the freedom of speech has won and the immigrants in Denmark and other European countries (yay generalization!) have different feelings towards random drawings? Apparently these Muslims have enough faith in the power of their religion AND the freedom of the countries they live in to not see this as a real problem.

[Qwikshot]

The Philadelphia Inquirer reprinted the photos (check'em out at philly.com).

Naturally, there were pickets in front of their offices.

I especially liked:


One demonstrator, 54-year-old Aneesha Uqdah of Philadelphia, argued that precedent exists for newspapers to withhold some information to prevent harm: "If a woman was a rape victim, you wouldn't publish her name," she said.
The harm in this case, according to the pickets, is to the reputation of Islam at a time when Muslims in the United States already feel under siege.
The demonstrators carried signs that read, "Freedom of Speech, Not Irresponsible Speech," "No to Hate," and "Islam = Nonviolence."
Umar Abdur-Rahman, 28, a schoolteacher at Al-Aqsa Islamic Academy in Philadelphia, said the paper could have described the cartoon at the center of the controversy without reprinting it.
"You can give that information in writing, keeping in mind that you're going to offend a large portion of your readers," he said.


I'm starting to get tired of this "intolerance". That they're "under seige". The West just doesn't "understand".

There are fundamentalists all over...Christians blowing up clinics, to Mormons having multiple wives (sometimes children)...to Jews digging in and refusing to submit to their own government's pull out (I recall a quote how one of the settler's decried the removal stating "they beat us like we were Arabs." - Check out CNN archives - hard to elicit sympathy for that). Ultimately though, most fundamentalists didn't fly planes into towers, most don't strap bombs to children and send them to blow up buses, most don't hold people hostage and behead them...this is the face of their religion unfortunately.

The crime of the West is that we took the oil, gave money to a concentrated power that did not care about it's people, and who used the guise of religion combined with nationalism to foment any issue to keep powers in check. There are few moderates in the Muslim world because there is little room for free thinkers.

I'm weary of it all, it's not going to get better either. It will breed indifference until somebody does something really stupid.

By the way, this should be a warning for dealings with China which keeps it's people restrained, and Africa and South America which exploit.

[Drake]

Ah, the Iranians get it:

hxxp://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=198476135&p=y9847695x

Iranian paper to hold contest for Holocaust cartoons
07/02/2006 - 10:33:47

A prominent Iranian newspaper says it is going to hold a competition for cartoons on the Holocaust to test whether the West will apply the principle of freedom of expression to the Nazi genocide against Jews as it did to the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.

Hamshahri, which is among the top five of Iran’s mass circulation papers, made clear the contest was a reaction to European newspapers’ publication of Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, which have led to attacks on European embassies across the Islamic world.

The newspaper said the contest would be launched on Monday and would be co-convened by itself and the House of Caricatures, a Tehran exhibition centre for cartoons.

Both the paper and the cartoon centre are owned by the Tehran Municipality, which is dominated by allies of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is known for his opposition to Israel.

Hamshahri invited foreign cartoonists to enter the competition and said it wanted to see how open the West was to such drawings.

That's a savvy move, going after one of the West's big hot buttons.

[Drake]

...Christian religious leaders in this country use democracy to impose their morality...

What exactly does that mean? Wouldn't morality imposed through a democratic process be the popular morality rather an some nebulous "imposed" morality?

Now, if you're talking about using their considerable influence from the pulpit to convince people to vote democratically to have their views represented in the government and the culture, then I understand what you mean. Otherwise, I guess I don't. :)

[Honolulu_Blue]

Ah, the Iranians get it:

hxxp://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=198476135&p=y9847695x



That's a savvy move, going after one of the West's big hot buttons.
This could be the future of international conflict. A "Toon Off" where countries try to one up each other via offensive cartoons. It'd be like that rap-off, or whatever the hell it was called, in "8 Mile."

[Coder]

Ah, refreshingly enough there are sunshine stories everywhere.. I just read about a guy who realized that there was a severe shortage of Danish and Norwegian flags in the Gaza-strip, so he started making them and is now selling them at $10/flag; ripe for burning. :)

[Wolfpack]

Ah, refreshingly enough there are sunshine stories everywhere.. I just read about a guy who realized that there was a severe shortage of Danish and Norwegian flags in the Gaza-strip, so he started making them and is now selling them at $10/flag; ripe for burning. :)

Nothing like unbridled capitalism. See a market for a product, make the product, make money hand over fist. :)

[miked]

Ah, the Iranians get it:

hxxp://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=198476135&p=y9847695x



That's a savvy move, going after one of the West's big hot buttons.

And...the best part of the article..."it's a Zionist conspiracy in response to Hamas taking control of the Palestinian government." Yay, when all else fails blame the Jews. The Danish newspapers published the pictures, so let's insult the Jews in cartoons. Yay!

[Solecismic]

Yep, the Iranians are savvy people. They know exactly how to illustrate (pun intended) their own hypocrisy.

But a series of cartoons about portraying the Jews in a very negative light? That's not a special contest, that's just the Sunday papers.

[Drake]

I'm not saying that it'll have the intended effect, just that they're learning how to play the game. I suspect they'll be disappointed when they release the images and nobody in the West riots.

[WSUCougar]

This whole situation just continues to spiral downward.

[Gallifrey]

Ah, the Iranians get it:

hxxp://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=198476135&p=y9847695x



That's a savvy move, going after one of the West's big hot buttons.


Who cares? They can draw me half human half donkey, and I will laugh. Who cares if someone draws a picture of a cat eating a mouse? A Christian doing whatever it is they would do that they would think would make them mad? A Jew or anyone other organized group?

If Iran wants to run such things that is fine. They have to do something to feel important to someone who looks at them and thinks they need a reason to give them thought for more than a second. That is how long it usually takes for me to loose interest in them and their pals.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Seriously. If the Iranians were really serious about upsetting the West, they would make sure Britney Spears shows up on Will & Grace, try to ensure Broke Back Mountain sweeps the Oscars, try and get The Book of Daniel back on the air, and try to arrange another "wardrobe malfunction" during next year's Super Bowl halftime.

Iran's attempt at this tit-for-tat thing show their profound lack of understanding at what people really care about.

[Drake]

Seriously. If the Iranians were really serious about upsetting the West, they would make sure Britney Spears shows up on Will & Grace, try to ensure Broke Back Mountain sweeps the Oscars, try and get The Book of Daniel back on the air, and try to arrange another "wardrobe malfunction" during next year's Super Bowl halftime.

Iran's attempt at this tit-for-tat thing show their profound lack of understanding at what people really care about.

I agree, but they are attempting some sort of tit-for-tat (i.e. you published images that offend us, now we're going to try to publish something to offend you just so you can see how it feels) rather than just stomping around and setting things on fire. That's the bit that strikes me as pretty savvy.

[sterlingice]

I agree, but they are attempting some sort of tit-for-tat (i.e. you published images that offend us, now we're going to try to publish something to offend you just so you can see how it feels) rather than just stomping around and setting things on fire. That's the bit that strikes me as pretty savvy.I'm with you, Drake- I love this angle the Iranians are taking. I'm a little worried- if they have some "indecent" cartoons (ie nudity or something) then they can portray us as hypocritical for not printing them. But, otherwise, yeah, this is perfect. Sure it's a childish "uh-huh"/"nuh-uh" exchange with the West, but at least it's in print, not with violence.

SI

[Drake]

It also puts our news outlets in an interesting position:

If they *do* publish the Iranian images, some readers will be outraged -- especially since most of them didn't publish the Mohammed caricatures. If they *don't* publish them, then the Islamic world will accuse the West of being hypocritical.

Yeah, it looks smarter and smarter the more I think about it.

[sterlingice]

Heck, post both at the same time on opposing opinion pages (ie on the left side, print the Mohammad images, on the right, print the Iranian ones, etc)

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

What exactly does that mean? Wouldn't morality imposed through a democratic process be the popular morality rather an some nebulous "imposed" morality?

Now, if you're talking about using their considerable influence from the pulpit to convince people to vote democratically to have their views represented in the government and the culture, then I understand what you mean. Otherwise, I guess I don't. :)
You say 'popular morality', I say 'oppression by the majority'.

[Wolfpack]

You say 'popular morality', I say 'oppression by the majority'.

I suppose it's perfectly democratic when a majority actually do something you favor? When is a democratic decision a tyranny versus simple democracy? Why vote at all then? If everything I ever support ends up being cast as oppression, what rights and say do I have at that point?

[Solecismic]

Where's the wisdom in this? If they had just kept quiet and not gone all Jihad about a bunch of stupid pictures, no one outside of Denmark would have seen them.

These people are professional insultees. Masters at the art of taking offense.

I honestly couldn't care less what they draw about Jews. We know they don't like Jews already. There's nothing they could draw that would be one millionth as offensive as supporting the violence in Palestine or threatening to bomb Israel into dirt.

The only thing they're going to prove by having this contest is that the rest of the world isn't as easily provoked into violence. And they've already proven that quite nicely.

Should European newspapers print the cartoons? No idea. A newspaper contest in Iran isn't exactly news around the world. But these violent protests are news, and I'm sure the cartoons will make further hypocrites out of the most hypocritic group of people in the entire world. And with anti-semitism so strong in many European nations these days, maybe some editors will get a kick out of it. Who knows?

[GMO]

It also puts our news outlets in an interesting position:

If they *do* publish the Iranian images, some readers will be outraged -- especially since most of them didn't publish the Mohammed caricatures. If they *don't* publish them, then the Islamic world will accuse the West of being hypocritical.

Yeah, it looks smarter and smarter the more I think about it.

It's a different situation because Iran is not a democracy with freedom of expression while the West is democratic with freedom of expression.

[GMO]

What if some fundamentalist Christians rioted and demanded that those who were pro-choice/pro-abortion be killed - would there be a sympathetic comments to that?

A lot of people are ready to condemn anything the West (especially the USA) does but then try to 'explain' or 'understand' if a non-Western country does the same thing.

[kenparker23]

It is simple really.

Stop blowing things up in the name of your religion and no cartoons will be made pointing this out.

[Drake]

What if some fundamentalist Christians rioted and demanded that those who were anti-choice/pro-abortion be killed - would there be a sympathetic comments to that?

A lot of people are ready to condemn anything the West (especially the USA) does but then try to 'explain' or 'understand' if a non-Western country does the same thing.

Er, I don't see anyone defending the rioting and violence around here. I haven't even seen any seriously sympathetic comments. Is this just a general comment or are you referring to something specific?

[KeyserSoze]

It also puts our news outlets in an interesting position:

If they *do* publish the Iranian images, some readers will be outraged -- especially since most of them didn't publish the Mohammed caricatures. If they *don't* publish them, then the Islamic world will accuse the West of being hypocritical.

Yeah, it looks smarter and smarter the more I think about it.


But i think that the point is not if the muslims could be outraged about the caricatures, is about the answer.

One man using his freedom of speech made this caricatures. A paper using his freedom of speech publish them.

To some muslims these caricatures are "bad". To this point is fair.

This muslims can made demostrations, can decide buying the danish products or not or maybe they could demand the paper or the author (using the laws), and maybe winning. Ok, no problem at all.

The problem come with the menace, the threads of terrorism and the burnings of the embassies.

If the iranians made these cartoons, I will be outraged. If some spanish paper publish them I will be outraged, and I could decide to buy or buy not this paper again. But I will respect the iraian and the paper freedom of speech and I won't burnt the paper or the Iranian embassy.

[Ben E Lou]

Where's the wisdom in this? If they had just kept quiet and not gone all Jihad about a bunch of stupid pictures, no one outside of Denmark would have seen them.Agreed. It's the same stupidity that Americans show when they send e-mails out protesting Twista, go nuts over "Cop Killa" and threaten to arrest CB4 if they perform "Sweat From My Balls." The say-what-you-want-just-spell-my-name-right mentality works here as well.


On another angle, here's a humorous angle from Boortz:

A STUDY IN MEDIA HYPOCRISY Would you think that any major American media outlet would be more willing to offend the world's Catholics than those practitioners of the wonderful, peaceful religion of Islam? Naw ... not in this country, right? Well, you're wrong. Let's take CNN as an example. For the first part of this lesson in hypocrisy I'll direct you to a story that appeared on CNN.com on September 28, 1999. The headline reads "Exhibit controversy makes coffee-table book a hot item." This is a story about an eight-pound coffee table book that was flying off the shelves of New York City bookstores. Why? Because of a controversy over one picture in the book .. a picture of a work of "art" in the book titled "The Holy Virgin Mary." The piece was done with elephant dung. Catholics were less than amused. So, what did CNN do? It published the story complete with a picture of the offending piece. Here's your link to check it out. (http://www.cnn.com/books/news/9909/28/saatchi.book/index.html) Now .. we move to February 6, 2006 and another CNN.com story titled "Danes feel threatened in cartoon row." This story, of course, is about all of those peaceful Muslims rioting and threatening death and mayhem because someone drew a cartoon of their pedophile-prophet Mohammed. Here's your link for the story about these peaceful Muslims. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/06/denmark.cartoons/index.html) Now ... scroll down to the bottom of the story. You'll see the notation "CNN has chosen not to show the cartoons out of respect for Islam." Well, isn't that special. Go ahead and show a painting of the Virgin Mary created out of elephant poo, but withhold the pictures of these cartoons that are causing carnage around the world. We don't want to insult Muslims, do we? Catholics? Well, apparently they're on their own.

[Drake]

Right. We know how it's going to play in the West -- believe me, if I can see what they're doing, so can the newspaper & media folks. The move is savvy because of how it's going to play in the Middle East and the political hay that the state or religious controlled Middle Eastern media is going to make of it with their True Believers(tm).

When I say "savvy", what I'm trying to indicate is that it's smart propaganda.

[Dutch]

Until democracy and free media are rooted in the entire middle east, our free press should have an obligation to not incite the ignorant.

These people get 80% of their viewpoints from the mosque and 20% from their state-run TV....which is a puppet of the mosque.

I didn't know they would get that upset over a cartoon, but in hindsight, what do we expect? The riots over the sensationalized koran abuse at Guantanamo was a hint.

I appreciate all free press, but I would appreciate it more if they were helping make the world a safer and better place (which used to be their charge), not inciting riots amongst the ignorant.

The presscorps creed should be: "Insightful not inciteful."

[WSUCougar]

I appreciate all free press, but I would appreciate it more if they were helping make the world a safer and better place (which used to be their charge), not inciting riots amongst the ignorant.
I hear what you are saying, but I think this theory ends up producing a case of the lunatics running the asylum.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Agreed. It's the same stupidity that Americans show when they send e-mails out protesting Twista, go nuts over "Cop Killa" and threaten to arrest CB4 if they perform "Sweat From My Balls." The say-what-you-want-just-spell-my-name-right mentality works here as well.


On another angle, here's a humorous angle from Boortz:
Humorous? I think retarded is a more apt description for this little diddy from Boortz.

He keeps using the word "peaceful" to indicate that that CNN piece some how depicts the Muslims riots as being tame. It doesn't. It has a picture of a guy burning the flag and uses the phrase "extreme acts of violence" and similar phrases to describe the reactions of the Muslims. Nowhere in that piece does it even suggest that these protests are "peaceful."

That's more of a side point. Boortz's main point is equally retarded and doesn't hold up. The poop painting and cartoon are different on many levels. While in poor taste and easily considered blasphemous, I am not familiar with any Christian law that strictly forbids depictions of Mary covered in poo. The no depictions of Mohammed is pretty clear and ranks way up there. I really don't think the comparison between the poop painting and the cartoon holds up. At all.

For the record, while I acknowledge the difference between the two, I don't agree with it. CNN is not run by Muslims and they should not think they have to follow the (or should expected to follow) the laws of Islam. I am not defending this "law", I think all religious laws are pretty stupid, but that's the world we're playing in.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Until democracy and free media are rooted in the entire middle east, our free press should have an obligation to not incite the ignorant.

These people get 80% of their viewpoints from the mosque and 20% from their state-run TV....which is a puppet of the mosque.

I didn't know they would get that upset over a cartoon, but in hindsight, what do we expect? The riots over the sensationalized koran abuse at Guantanamo was a hint.

I appreciate all free press, but I would appreciate it more if they were helping make the world a safer and better place (which used to be their charge), not inciting riots amongst the ignorant.

The presscorps creed should be: "Insightful not inciteful."
This is a very good point.

[MIJB#19]

Well, concider the source, it's CNN. Did you really expect consitency?

[Drake]

The poop painting and cartoon are different on many levels. While in poor taste and easily considered blasphemous, I am not familiar with any Christian law that strictly forbids depictions of Mary covered in poo. The no depictions of Mohammed is pretty clear and ranks way up there. I really don't think the comparison between the poop painting and the cartoon holds up. At all.

I think that if Xians ran around burning things down or blowing things up every time they got offended, you'd feel differently.

And why isn't anybody saying, "If you don't like what's in our media -- which you know is going to offend you -- don't read our newspapers, watch our TV or look at our forum threads". Don't we tell that to each other all of the time?

[Honolulu_Blue]

I think that if Xians ran around burning things down or blowing things up every time they got offended, you'd feel differently.

And why isn't anybody saying, "If you don't like what's in our media -- which you know is going to offend you -- don't read our newspapers, watch our TV or look at our forum threads". Don't we tell that to each other all of the time?
I'm sure I would, but they don't. If there were riots and things getting burned down, I am sure CNN would have thought differently about publishing the poo painting. Is this CNN cowing to extremists? Yes, to some extent. It's sad because, like Coguar said, it's a bit of the old the lunatics running the asylum, but like Dutch pointed out there is the "insight" versus "incite" argument.

It's a tough position, but I imagine media outlets make this type of decision all the time. They don't publish nude photographs or particularly gruesome photographs for similar reasons. It's a bit of a balancing test, I would imagine: Balancing the value of publishing a photo/piece versus the backlash/outcry.

As for the second point, I agree with that, but that's not how people think or react to things. When "The Book of Daniel" was on TV, did people say, "Hey. If you don't like it/think it's offensive, just don't watch it. End of." No, people continued to piss and moan. Same with the poo painting. Don't like it? Don't buy the book/go to exhibit.

[Solecismic]

Until democracy and free media are rooted in the entire middle east, our free press should have an obligation to not incite the ignorant.


I think we disagree about as much as humanly possible on this issue.

The press exists to inform. The rioters made the cartoons news by their behavior. I think the press has an excellent case for reprinting them.

We cannot change our way of life to cater to one large group of extremists living overseas. And our way of life includes a free press.

Already, I fear that this type of lifestyle is starting to take in the U.S. I'm not sure Poo Mary would receive the same treatment today as it did a few years ago. The American version of the Taliban is starting to gain a hold over the FCC.

This is how it starts. As has been pointed out many times, go back a thousand years, and Persia was the center of the world's culture and innovation. The same could happen to us.

[Qwikshot]

Until democracy and free media are rooted in the entire middle east, our free press should have an obligation to not incite the ignorant.

These people get 80% of their viewpoints from the mosque and 20% from their state-run TV....which is a puppet of the mosque.

I didn't know they would get that upset over a cartoon, but in hindsight, what do we expect? The riots over the sensationalized koran abuse at Guantanamo was a hint.

I appreciate all free press, but I would appreciate it more if they were helping make the world a safer and better place (which used to be their charge), not inciting riots amongst the ignorant.

The presscorps creed should be: "Insightful not inciteful."

So basically, since they're ignorant we should not subject them to free thinking. We should also, since these cartoons were published first in Denmark (I don't think their main religion is Islam) we should prevent even free thinking nations from expression.

Let's on top of it, go a step further...I mean Watergate would've never broke weren't for the nasty press inciting that there were criminal acts afoot, I mean stuff like that can bring a nation down, especially all the ignorant who don't understand the political system.

Why even bring wiretapping to light, I mean it'll incite and incense the liberal...I mean ignorants who don't understand how to protect this country.

Let's not forget about preventing the Chinese from free thinkers too (oh wait, that's already been done).

The only way for the ignorant to become truly enlightened for their eyes to be opened...not everyone respects Allah and it's not because they are evil, or Zionist, or American, it's because they challenge and generate dialogue, even if it's inciteful.

Let's burn Bill Hicks (well his body), David Cross, and anyone else who challenges for the sake of free thought and then let's punish anyone in the press that writes about it, because the ignorant shouldn't been incited.

More so, let's classify most Muslims as ignorant (which I think is an even greater disservice).

Maybe I got it all wrong...maybe I'm sensationalizing, but I think nothing was done wrong.

The media will sensationalize (for the sake of ratings) but I think that regardless, they do a service for everyone, even the ignorant. And when there is a fearful precident estabilished that we should disuade the media from providing information (while we're on it...the Arab networks shouldn't show people getting blown up, our soliders getting blown up, hostages getting beheaded, because it's inciteful)...

I need a break...

[Drake]

A bunch of insightful stuff that I agree with.

Too bad the rest of the world isn't like us. Then again, if it was, what would we have to watch on the news? :)

[Dutch]

Qwikshot,

When I say ignrorant, I mean the definition of being uniformed, not stupid. My fault for not clarifying that further.

[Dutch]

I think we disagree about as much as humanly possible on this issue.

The press exists to inform. The rioters made the cartoons news by their behavior. I think the press has an excellent case for reprinting them.

We cannot change our way of life to cater to one large group of extremists living overseas. And our way of life includes a free press.

Already, I fear that this type of lifestyle is starting to take in the U.S. I'm not sure Poo Mary would receive the same treatment today as it did a few years ago. The American version of the Taliban is starting to gain a hold over the FCC.

This is how it starts. As has been pointed out many times, go back a thousand years, and Persia was the center of the world's culture and innovation. The same could happen to us.

I'm not talking about censorship, I'm talking about ethics. Big difference.

[Qwikshot]

I'm not talking about censorship, I'm talking about ethics. Big difference.

First off, I understand where you are coming from. But isn't omission the same as censorship? What is the ethics of leaving an entire region uniformed? Moreso, fundamentalists "look" for problems, it isn't the media that is inciting the actions as much as it is the mullahs finding fault. I think we need to supersaturate those areas with Western ideals, if riots are the first step in the communication factor, so be it, but I would rather shout at each other than simply ignore the problem.

Western policy has been doing that for years.

I mean isn't terrorism simply an extreme means of getting one's voice heard?

They will not be reasonable regardless, until Israel is destoryed, Western policies are dismantled and their faith dominates the world. (I do not think all Muslims believe this, just the fundamentalist kind).

[Qwikshot]

I believe an ethical decision is when the media refuse to release information because harm could be done to certain persons in the immediate moment, but to prevent news on the basis of ethics, one could argue that any bad news should be negated because of harmful intent.

It was like when there were two girls kidnapped, they reported their names and ages, when they were found but noted were raped, they immediated removed all traces of their names and photos...that is ethical

BUT

to do so to an entire region of peoples, well, like my initial statement, this wasn't published in a Muslim country. I feel that if they want to protest it, so be it, but to actually bully media into preventing posting of news, that's wrong. This is no different than Scientology or the Mormons trying to file injuctions against reports or news, or Catholics burying abuse records.

[Solecismic]

I'm not talking about censorship, I'm talking about ethics. Big difference.

We do not have a right not to be offended.

I'm offended by pretty much everything that comes out of Pat Robertson's mouth, for example.

But I recognize he wouldn't be on television every day if he didn't have a significant following. I'm free to change the channel or turn off the television.

What offends me more than just about anything is someone telling me what I can and can not do, as long as no one is harmed in the process. Why are my rights somehow less valuable than those of the American Taliban?

Those cartoons did not injure or even insult anyone in the Middle East. Their leaders went to the trouble of hunting these images down and insisting that their followers take offense. By letting these people have their way, the rights of every free person in Europe are compromised.

I'm waiting for one world leader - just one - to tell these rioting nutjacks to sit down, shut up and mind their own business. These are the same people who danced in the streets on 9/11, most likely. I really don't give a damn if they're offended by some cartoons printed half a world and apparently 10,000 years away.

[Gallifrey]

As has been pointed out many times, go back a thousand years, and Persia was the center of the world's culture and innovation.

Even though I am Mr. History, I do find this harder and harder to believe with each passing day over the years.

[Coder]

Even though I am Mr. History, I do find this harder and harder to believe with each passing day over the years.

Which is why I think Jim is pointing it out... we tend to not remember mistakes made and are likely to repeat them.

[Coder]

I'm waiting for one world leader - just one - to tell these rioting nutjacks to sit down, shut up and mind their own business.

For what it's worth.. I've been browsing a few arabian english-speaking newspaper sites today and just about all of them condemn both the caricatures as well as the violence.. The opinion-pieces I've read are obviously Muslim-biased, but not fanatical or encouraging firebombing embassies. They're basically saying the same thing as we are here.. "let's not play into the westerner's hands and go all Beirut on them"... (paraphrased)..

I think there's a small but vocal contingent who's encouraging these riots.. I read one article where an Arab working his business from the house next to the Danish/Swedish embassy in Teheran got his entire business destroyed by a bunch of rioters.. these were NOT the original protesters who had shown up to prepare a peaceful demonstration, but a separate group who only seemed interested in causing as much havoc as possible.

[st.cronin]

There is a direct connection between what we are seeing here and Islam's insistence on only teaching in Arabic. The idea that God speaks Arabic, and only Arabic, is theologically bizarre and, to me, correlates with all this irrational behavior we see.

There's a thesis in there, somewhere.

[Drake]

There is a direct connection between what we are seeing here and Islam's insistence on only teaching in Arabic. The idea that God speaks Arabic, and only Arabic, is theologically bizarre and, to me, correlates with all this irrational behavior we see.

There's a thesis in there, somewhere.

Besides, we all know that God only speaks Klingon.

[Coder]

The idea that God speaks Arabic, and only Arabic, is theologically bizarre and, to me

I know.. it's bizarre to me too.. we all know he only speaks Swedish.. duh!

[Dutch]

Those cartoons did not injure or even insult anyone in the Middle East. Their leaders went to the trouble of hunting these images down and insisting that their followers take offense. By letting these people have their way, the rights of every free person in Europe are compromised.

In a global world of information, I would imagine it probably only took one Syrian in Denmark to e-mail a link to the newspaper back to the Syrian State-Run Media to get the ball rolling. The guy probably had the newspaper delivered to his door, no hunting neccessary these days.

The point is that YOU are ready to deal with Pat Robertson, THEY are not ready to deal with negative depictions of Muhammed. We've got a leg up on them.

It's like waving a medium-well T-bone in front of a starving man but not giving it to him. After all, you do it all the time at home to your buddies. It's just not ethical given the situation.

I'm waiting for one world leader - just one - to tell these rioting nutjacks to sit down, shut up and mind their own business. These are the same people who danced in the streets on 9/11, most likely. I really don't give a damn if they're offended by some cartoons printed half a world and apparently 10,000 years away.

Well, I don't want to apologize for the actions of these people, there reaction is rediculous (and I think I tried to point that out in the Burning (EDIT: Danish) Dutch Embassy thread). But the problem with all of this is that you know their reaction is overboard, I know it, but they don't know it.

And they won't know it until they are free from their propaganda machines. They are ignorant to the ideals of free speech. They have no idea.

But our western reporters should not flaunt that or taunt them with it. They should still behave ethically.

Unless the mission of the free press is to ignite reform in the Middle East, I think all journalists and their artists should be more careful.

[MrBigglesworth]

The point is that YOU are ready to deal with Pat Robertson, THEY are not ready to deal with negative depictions of Muhammed. We've got a leg up on them.
Many people seem to be of the opinion that America's high profile religious leaders are followed by only a few people, while the Muslim world's high profile religious leaders are followed by all the people in their respective countries, and I think the truth is somewhere very much in between.

[Klinglerware]

There is a direct connection between what we are seeing here and Islam's insistence on only teaching in Arabic. The idea that God speaks Arabic, and only Arabic, is theologically bizarre and, to me, correlates with all this irrational behavior we see.

There's a thesis in there, somewhere.

But that does seem similar to the insistence by some Christian groups that the King James Bible in English is the only true representation of the word of God. I think Franklinoble said something to that effect a few months ago...

[Klinglerware]

Well, so much for Jyllands-Posten (the Danish Newspaper who started it all) being the torch-bearer for freedom of expression with a legacy of religious satire:

Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons

Gwladys Fouché
Monday February 6, 2006

Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.

The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.

Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

The illustrator said: "I see the cartoons as an innocent joke, of the type that my Christian grandfather would enjoy."

"I showed them to a few pastors and they thought they were funny."

But the Jyllands-Posten editor in question, Mr Kaiser, said that the case was "ridiculous to bring forward now. It has nothing to do with the Muhammad cartoons.

"In the Muhammad drawings case, we asked the illustrators to do it. I did not ask for these cartoons. That's the difference," he said.

"The illustrator thought his cartoons were funny. I did not think so. It would offend some readers, not much but some."

The decision smacks of "double-standards", said Ahmed Akkari, spokesman for the Danish-based European Committee for Prophet Honouring, the umbrella group that represents 27 Muslim organisations that are campaigning for a full apology from Jyllands-Posten.

"How can Jyllands-Posten distinguish the two cases? Surely they must understand," Mr Akkari added.

[Dutch]

Many people seem to be of the opinion that America's high profile religious leaders are followed by only a few people, while the Muslim world's high profile religious leaders are followed by all the people in their respective countries, and I think the truth is somewhere very much in between.

Maybe, but here are are people named Dutch, and Glengoyne, and Solecismic, and JIMG, and Flasch, JW, and Flere and Mr Biggleworth and everybody else to duke it out and find that balance. Or more powerful yet, ABC, CBS, NBC, AP, Reuters, CNN, and Fox News to tell us what's going on.

There, we're all hung, shot and our banners set on fire in favor of whatever Mutmar King God of the Mullah's says. Thus, the only people left are the supporters, the pretenders, and the dead.

[MrBigglesworth]

There, we're all hung, shot and our banners set on fire in favor of whatever Mutmar King God of the Mullah's says. Thus, the only people left are the supporters, the pretenders, and the dead.
I think that is a gross generalization of the Muslim world not supported by reality at all.

[Dutch]

I think that is a gross generalization of the Muslim world not supported by reality at all.

So what? I really wanted to say Mutmar King God of the Mullah's in a sentence.

[BishopMVP]

I think there's a small but vocal contingent who's encouraging these riots.. I read one article where an Arab working his business from the house next to the Danish/Swedish embassy in Teheran got his entire business destroyed by a bunch of rioters.. these were NOT the original protesters who had shown up to prepare a peaceful demonstration, but a separate group who only seemed interested in causing as much havoc as possible.Ding ding ding..... why would cartoons published in September suddenly provoke an outcry? Partially because certain Danish clerics were touring the Middle East bringin attention to them (and making up other far worse cartoons) and partially because the Muslim Brotherhood and eventually the Syrian Ba'athists and the Pasdaran figured they could gain from the rioting.

This isn't spontaneous rioting, an upswelling of religious sentiment across Muslim lands. There isn't some strictly followed Muslim law banning all depictions of Mohammad, and these riots are happening because someone wants them to and to a large extent orchestrated them.

[Qwikshot]

I for one, welcome our new ant overlords.

[Honolulu_Blue]

There isn't some strictly followed Muslim law banning all depictions of Mohammad.
There isn't?

[ISiddiqui]

For what it's worth.. I've been browsing a few arabian english-speaking newspaper sites today and just about all of them condemn both the caricatures as well as the violence.. The opinion-pieces I've read are obviously Muslim-biased, but not fanatical or encouraging firebombing embassies. They're basically saying the same thing as we are here.. "let's not play into the westerner's hands and go all Beirut on them"... (paraphrased)..

I think there's a small but vocal contingent who's encouraging these riots.. I read one article where an Arab working his business from the house next to the Danish/Swedish embassy in Teheran got his entire business destroyed by a bunch of rioters.. these were NOT the original protesters who had shown up to prepare a peaceful demonstration, but a separate group who only seemed interested in causing as much havoc as possible.
Indeed... I think this is just a group of people that wants to riot against the West using this as an excuse. That is why it happened months after the cartoons were printed and they've added even WORSE cartoons (like Muhammed with a pig nose, etc) and said they were printed.

They wanted the rioting and the anti-Western feeling. It was a case of propaganda and the masses falling for it.


Oh, and I'm sad to hear that the newspaper didn't print the Christ cartoons. You know that's going to be circulated in the ME.

[Drake]

I for one, welcome our new ant overlords.

So what? I really wanted to say Mutmar King God of the Mullah's in a sentence.

Heh and Double Heh*.

D.












* Not to be confused with "hehe", which sounds gay.

[BishopMVP]

There isn't?Under Sharia, there is a law, but it is only in the most extreme of interpretations where it is important enough to merit a response. The only fatwa issued in this case was by Yussuf al-Qaradawi of the Muslim Brotherhood - which is a political, not religious organization.

[JonInMiddleGA]

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/cat_index_26.asp

The Danish Mohmammed cartoon controversy has taken another turn. Four key New York Press staff members, editor in chief Harry Siegel, managing editor Tim Marchman, arts editor Jonathan Leaf and city hall bureau head Azi Paybarah, all quit yesterday after they were ordered not to run the cartoons in an issue that was supposed to be dedicated to them. Editor in chief Siegel wrote in the New York Observer, “We have no illusions about the power of the Press (NY Press, we mean), but even on the far margins of the world-historical stage, we are not willing to side with the enemies of the values we hold dear, a free press not least among them.”

edit to add: And here's the Observer story where Siegel makes his statement on the resignations.
http://thepoliticker.observer.com/2006/02/ny-press-kills-cartoons-staff-walks-out.html

[MrBigglesworth]

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/cat_index_26.asp

The Danish Mohmammed cartoon controversy has taken another turn. Four key New York Press staff members, editor in chief Harry Siegel, managing editor Tim Marchman, arts editor Jonathan Leaf and city hall bureau head Azi Paybarah, all quit yesterday after they were ordered not to run the cartoons in an issue that was supposed to be dedicated to them. Editor in chief Siegel wrote in the New York Observer, “We have no illusions about the power of the Press (NY Press, we mean), but even on the far margins of the world-historical stage, we are not willing to side with the enemies of the values we hold dear, a free press not least among them.”

edit to add: And here's the Observer story where Siegel makes his statement on the resignations.
http://thepoliticker.observer.com/2006/02/ny-press-kills-cartoons-staff-walks-out.html
As long as it's not the government that isn't letting them print the cartoons and is instead the private citizens working at / that own NY Press, then they wouldn't be siding with the enemies of the values they hold dear. Publications decide to print or not print things all the time, like pictures of beheadings or the names of rape victims. Choosing not to print something that may be inflammatory or in poor taste is not in and of itself an attack on freedom. They have a right to leave their publication if they don't agree with the decisions of it, but there is no infringement of the free press here.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... but there is no infringement of the free press here.

Just FTR -- I'm arguing neither side of the coin with my post of the story.
I simply happened to run across it while making my usual rounds through some of the industry trades online & saw the story, figured it might be of at least minor interest to some in this thread. No more, no less.

[st.cronin]

But that does seem similar to the insistence by some Christian groups that the King James Bible in English is the only true representation of the word of God. I think Franklinoble said something to that effect a few months ago...

It may seem similiar, but if you take the time to study religions, the language thing is what really sets Islam apart. Buddhists and Christians have worked very hard to translate their sacred texts into every language imaginable. Muslims have worked very hard to force people to learn Arabic, often at the point of a sword, since, according to the Koran, Arabic is the language that God speaks.

To me, it seems obvious that it's a theological mistake.

[Coder]

It may seem similiar, but if you take the time to study religions, the language thing is what really sets Islam apart. Buddhists and Christians have worked very hard to translate their sacred texts into every language imaginable. Muslims have worked very hard to force people to learn Arabic, since, according to the Koran, Arabic is the language that God speaks, often at the point of a sword.

To me, it seems obvious that it's a theological mistake.

Not really.. while the Arabic Koran is considered to be "the original", it is widely available in translations in most common languages (though considered interpretations, not copies of the original).

For a clearer explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran#Translation_of_the_Qur.27an

[Gallifrey]

I learned something today. That God is only speaking Arabic according to the Koran I would assume.

I know I stood on the spot where the Incas would kill people so crops would grow. But I couldn't find any Incas to talk to about it. Wasn't the God who they did the killing for feeding them well?

I guess the Pope speaks Arabic since he has a hot line upstairs.

I also find it hard to believe that there is fighting and killing over religion. Who would have guessed?

In the end of the world when someone from some other planet looks at what happened to this one, they will notice the waisted resources and time over such stupid things.

[st.cronin]

The Qur'an has been translated into many languages; there are several translations for many languages, including English. These translations are considered to be glosses for personal use only; they have no weight in serious religious discussion.

I don't think anybody would say that about translations of the Bible; people have their favorites, but I'm not aware of any theologian suggesting that if you read the gospels in anything but the original Greek, that you are not studying the Bible. But that's exactly the case with the Koran.

[Coder]

I don't think anybody would say that about translations of the Bible; people have their favorites, but I'm not aware of any theologian suggesting that if you read the gospels in anything but the original Greek, that you are not studying the Bible. But that's exactly the case with the Koran.

I was just pointing out that your post about the language-barrier was incorrect.

The Koran is in fact translated into several languages. If you ask a Greek Orthodox catholic, he'd probably have similar reactions to what you described above with regards to Christianity.

We're just talking about various degrees of faith.

[st.cronin]

I was just pointing out that your post about the language-barrier was incorrect.

The Koran is in fact translated into several languages. If you ask a Greek Orthodox catholic, he'd probably have similar reactions to what you described above with regards to Christianity.

We're just talking about various degrees of faith.

Um, no, I wasn't incorrect. Have you ever talked to a Muslim? The Koran translated is not the Koran. The Bible translated is still the Bible. Individuals within a faith disagreeing about which 'version' or translation to use is not the same thing as a faith decreeing that only one language is the language of God; that prayers conducted in a different language are not heard by God; and that if you don't speak Arabic, your soul is inherently deficient.

[EagleFan]

Wow, this whole thing underscores just how out of control these radicals are.

Where to begin?


A freaking political cartoon causes enough outrage to create mass riots, murder and threats of more violence.

The cartoons are in a Danish paper yet protests begin forming outside of a US base. Great logic there.

To prove just how wrong the cartoons are for portraynig them as violent, they riot and murder to prove how wrong the cartoons are. I don't even want to try and figure out that logic.

Again, it's a freaking cartoon. Isn't this the 21st century? Shouldn't we be civilized enough to not riot in response to a feraking cartoon. It just goes to show that some people have no place in a civilized society and are obviously making no attempt to.



The world would be a much better place without radical animals like that.

[EagleFan]

dola: I didn't see them but from hearing them described I thought the "no more virgins" one was kind of funny.

[Wolfpack]

I've seen them and they are a little on the tasteless side, but considering I've seen a crucifix in a urine jar and the Virgin Mary saluted with cow dung surrounded by pictures of genitalia, it's hardly anything to riot about. They have every right to be angry and yell and protest and all that, but to essentially declare war on Denmark on the matter is a bit much.

That being said, I have read in places that the pictures under discussion weren't actually the pictures that caused the riots. Supposedly, whoever rabble-roused actually mocked up worse pictures that never were part of the original series of cartoons and claimed they were published by the newspaper.

[JonInMiddleGA]

http://www.radioandrecords.com/Newsroom/2006_02_08/talkhost.asp
Talk Host Recieves Death Threat


Following his appearance on Salem Radio Network's nationally syndicated Mike Gallagher Show yesterday, WORD/Greenville, SC host Russ Cassell received phone calls threatening his own life, his family and the life of his co-host, Lisa Rollins.

Cassell was on Gallagher's show to defend his decision to post on his website a controversial cartoon that depicts the image of Muhammed. The cartoon has caused mass rioting by Muslims around the world. Cassell appeared again today on Gallagher's program and confirmed that both he and Rollins are being escorted by local law enforcement officials who are currently working on tracing the threatening calls that were made to the radio station.

"I am very concerned for the safety of my friends and fellow broadcasters," said Gallagher about the threats made against Cassell. "It disappoints me that we live in a time when this type of threat exists in America."

Gallagher said he had chosen not to post the controversial cartoon on his show's website because of just the sort of thing that has happened to Cassell. "The safety of my family is too important for me to take a chance of them being harmed because of a cartoon," he said.

[Drake]

As long as it's not the government that isn't letting them print the cartoons and is instead the private citizens working at / that own NY Press, then they wouldn't be siding with the enemies of the values they hold dear. Publications decide to print or not print things all the time, like pictures of beheadings or the names of rape victims. Choosing not to print something that may be inflammatory or in poor taste is not in and of itself an attack on freedom. They have a right to leave their publication if they don't agree with the decisions of it, but there is no infringement of the free press here.

I'd agree with this point in general, but also point out that if this doesn't count as a "chilling effect", neither does university administration looking into muzzling political speech by professors in the classroom count as a "chilling effect". (FTR, I work for a major American university and hear profs griping about the chilling effect every time I turn around, so maybe I'm a little biased against snooty academic dweebs on this score. Too often, their "chilling effect" = my "whining because I'm not getting my way" -- and I don't even work with the faculty directly.)