# What do you think of making fun of gods and prophets?



## ampurdan

A Danish newspaper's decision to print twelve cartoons featuring Muslim prophet Mohammed (as a terrorist) has made the Muslim comunity all over the World fly into rage. Some French and Norwegian papers have supported the Danish one and have decided to print the same cartoons, arguing that anybody has right to make fun of God. They say that this is what freedom of speech is about... In Muslim countries people is seconding the calls to boycott Danish products and some fundamentalist terrorists now say that Danes, French people and Norwegians are targets... Denmark PM appeared on Al Jazeera to apologize yesterday evening. UNO's Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has said that freedom of speech does not shelter the gibe of religious believes, but also that it should not provoke violent answers...

What do you think? Are we entitled to make fun of our or anybody elses' gods, saints, prophets and sacred figures?


----------



## Zakalwe

I found that the cartoon featuring Muslim prophet Mohammed wearing bombs disrespectful of Muslim religion. But for freedom of speech, it cannot be forbidden and only reprimanded.
However people in Muslim countries overreacted. They can ask for excuses, but reacting like they are doing... They are too sensitive. Sure, it shows how religion is important for them and their life, but they should have hindsight.


----------



## Brioche

How many of these revolting Muslims read Danish newspapers?
The offending cartoons were first published last September.

Anyway, it is completely hypocrital.
Syria is a Muslim country, and Syrian TV has depicted Jewish rabbis as cannibals.

As a general principle, yes we can make fun of other people's gods, religions, sacred figures and prophets.

Freedom of speech includes the right to offend.

From the fundamentalist Muslim point of view, anyone who is not a Muslim, (and who refuses to accept the truth) is insulting Mohammed, Allah and the Koran.


----------



## lampiao

Well, the way I see it they do have the right to print whatever they want. But a right has *always* a responsibility attached to it.
You can insult someone, but you must be prepared for the consequences. That someone may want to seek compensation for that action, whichever way he/she/they find.

So, I think you have the right to make fun of «gods», but you shouldn't (at least not publicly). Even if you do not believe in any, at least out of respect for those who do.


----------



## diegodbs

"SOCORRO VOLTAIRE, SE HAN VUELTO LOCOS"

(****)Ésta era la frase que encabezaba el editorial de France Soir.

En su primera página, France Soir clama: ¡Socorro Voltaire, se han vuelto locos! sobre una foto que muestra a tres hombres que queman una bandera danesa. En las páginas interiores, el periódico se pregunta: ¿Intolerancia religiosa o laicismo? y explica su elección en un recuadro titulado: "Respuestas a algunas preguntas". Sigue diciendo: "el Islam prohíbe a sus fieles cualquier imagen del profeta (...), la pregunta que se plantea es la siguiente: ¿todos aquéllos que no son musulmanes están obligados a obedecer esta prohibición?" (****) 

(****)¿Se imaginan una sociedad en la que se fueran acumulando las prohibiciones de las diferentes religiones? ¿Qué quedaría de la libertad de pensamiento, de la libertad de palabra, de la libertad de movimiento? Ya conocemos demasiado bien esas sociedades. Es, por ejemplo, el Irán de los mullahs. Pero ayer fue la Francia de la Inquisición, de las matanzas, de la Noche de San Bartolomé (masacre de protestantes en 1572).(****) Ayer fue España, Alemania, Italia, ayer fue la Edad Media.

La libertad religiosa es la libertad de creer o de no creer, de practicar un culto en completa libertad. Pero nunca ha de convertirse en libertad para imponer a toda la sociedad las reglas que atañan a una sola creencia.

Caricaturizar las creencias o los profetas de alguien no es grave, no es nada. Grave es no respetar los derechos de las personas, grave es establecer un estado confesional, grave es obligar a las mujeres a vestirse de saco, grave es lapidar a los adúlteros, grave es ejecutar a las personas en plazas públicas o en prisiones. Grave es lo que nos sucedería a todos si el fanatismo religioso islámico, cristiano, sikh o sintoísta se impone a la sociedad civil. Grave es no saber que existen las sociedades civiles formadas por seres humanos libres e iguales. ¡Socorro Voltaire!
 
(****) Los párrafos con asteriscos fueron publicados en Le Monde, el resto es mío.


----------



## Outsider

Generally speaking, I am a big supporter of freedom of speech. However, I feel uneasy about commenting on a cartoon I've never seen, and without knowing anything about the social context in Denmark.  

O.K., let's put it this way: I'm 100% behind freedom of speech (and will defend your right to say things I don't like, etc., etc.), but at the same time some speeches can be imprudent or distasteful.

I do understand how Muslims may be tired (and scared) of the stereotype that they're all terrorists, which is sadly so popular in the West.

When Iranian president Ahmadinejad spoke about 'wiping Israel off the map', there was widespread outrage in the West. Will there be the same kind of outrage here over the cartoons?...


----------



## judkinsc

Outsider said:
			
		

> When Iranian president Ahmadinejad spoke about 'wiping Israel off the map', there was widespread outrage in the West. Will there be the same kind of outrage here over the cartoons?...


 
The president of a country saying something is far from the same as a, perhaps fringe, newspaper saying something.  Political cartoons are not meant to be seen literally, the artists create them with a slant in mind, by which they display the events that inspired the cartoon in an amusing light.

A president is serious.  A cartoon is a joke.

It is possible that the cartoon was being ironic, and actually meant that not all Muslims were terrorists, attempting to display this with a over-abundance of the accusation.  It cannot be defined, and it is not a political statement.  Governments and people would do best to ignore these things.  Complaining only frames your country in a weak light.


----------



## Outsider

judkinsc said:
			
		

> A president is serious.  A cartoon is a joke.


Serious? A politician? You can't be serious!


----------



## lampiao

I haven't seen the cartoons either, and the opinion I stated above was generally speakin. Still, we can't compare the call for the destruction of a nation with some potencially offending or distasteful cartoons.
I think the west, just as the rest of the world would react the same if someone else called for the annihilation of Iran and its people, just as an example.


----------



## judkinsc

Outsider said:
			
		

> Serious? A politician? You can't be serious!


 
As amusing as the ubiquitous jokes about politicians are...

A president's statement is a political viewpoint for the entire country and should be an indication of their political agenda.

In the case of such figures as presidents and politicians, no word is simple.


----------



## diegodbs

> When Iranian president Ahmadinejad spoke about 'wiping Israel off the map', there was widespread outrage in the West. Will there be the same kind of outrage here over the cartoons?...


 
Wiping a country off the map is something serious, people may die.
Cartoons don't kill.


----------



## Outsider

lampiao said:
			
		

> I think the west, just as the rest of the world would react the same if someone else called for the annihilation of Iran and its people, just as an example.


Well, they didn't seem to make much of a fuss when Ariel Sharon spoke of invading Iran, a while back... 
(Note: This was before Ahmadinejad made _his_ stupid remarks.)


----------



## lampiao

Thank you for that link.
I've read the article, but I failed to infer from it that Israel wishes to wipe any nation off the map. What it does say is «Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq»

Stripping a country of WMD is not annihalating it. You may agree or disagree with that intention, but you can't say mr Sharon wanted to destroy Iran, Syria or Lybia.
Plus, you can't say Israel were planning on doing it themselves. They were kind of expecting the US would do that for them. And that decision is up to the american administration.

Still, leaving that decision to the american administration leaves me little doubt it may really happen. If we look at Iraq, where were the wmd? I don't know really.
Which were the real motives to invate Iraq? I don't know... I can't really agree it was the oil, because since then oil prices have duplicated (at least for the consumer).
Does the american administration have any interest in invading any of these countries? Your gess is as good as mine.

I would again be against an invasion of any of the above mention countries.
Haven't North Korea stated they do have them?


----------



## ampurdan

Well, there were many people in the West who did make a fuss about it, not necessarily Muslims, as much as about many other statements made by ther deceased Israeli PM.

Anyway, I also think that there is much difference between declarations made by the official representatives of a country and the ones made by the press.

Press is continually making fun of politicians and national feelings, sometimes with more aim and good sense than others... Why shouldn't we make fun of religious feelings? Is any joke disrespectful?


----------



## DDT

Once again we're faced with an attempt to restrict the freedom of the press.
I am indeed fed up with all the hypocrisy hidden behind one pretext or another being used to justify attacks on the press.
I hope people can realise the way information is being more and more exploited by demagogues without scruple.
This specific case doesn't affect me that much. I am simply astonished by the way news are being manipulated

DDT


----------



## Outsider

lampiao said:
			
		

> Thank you for that link.
> I've read the article, but I failed to infer from it that Israel wishes to wipe any nation off the map. What it does say is «Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq»


And how has Iraq been stripped of the WMD it didn't have? By bombing it back to the Stone Age. The message seems clear enough to me: "Iran, you're next!"


----------



## Alundra

Outsider said:
			
		

> And how has Iraq been stripped of the WMD it didn't have? By bombing it back to the Stone Age. The message seems clear enough to me: "Iran, you're next!"


 
Sorry, Outsider... What is WMD?  

Alundra.


----------



## DDT

Alundra said:
			
		

> Sorry, Outsider... What is WMD?
> 
> Alundra.



Weapons of Mass Destruction

DDT


----------



## Alundra

DDT said:
			
		

> Weapons of Mass Destruction
> 
> DDT


 
Opss.. of course..  Thanks 

Alundra.


----------



## ampurdan

France, Norwege and Denmark were not involved in the invasion of Iraq. I think we are discussing a different issue here: To which extent do we have to respect religious feelings and not say what we think of religious ideas?


----------



## DDT

ampurdan said:
			
		

> France, Norwege and Denmark were not involved in the invasion of Iraq. I think we are discussing a different issue here: To which extent do we have to respect religious feelings and not say what we think of religious ideas?



I'm afraid my previous post might be sort of cryptic about your original question. What I think is that freedom concerns the possibililty of talking about every subject including religion

And I agree with judkinsc, a cartoon is a joke, not an official statement

DDT


----------



## borhane

Dear brothers , we have to make a difference between " freedom of speech" and freedom of to hurt the feelings of the muslims !!! you know.


----------



## Agnès E.

Brioche said:
			
		

> How many of these revolting Muslims read Danish newspapers?
> The offending cartoons were first published last September.
> 
> Anyway, it is completely hypocrital.
> Syria is a Muslim country, and Syrian TV has depicted Jewish rabbis as cannibals.
> 
> As a general principle, yes we can make fun of other people's gods, religions, sacred figures and prophets.
> 
> Freedom of speech includes the right to offend.


I fully agree with this.
How many cartoons laughing at the pope and christian God are published every day?
Is there a worldwide revolution each time?
The intention was not to offend, but to have fun. Some may choose to respond by being offended, but it is their own choice.
For every word we say, every opinion we express is possibly offensive to someone.


----------



## Outsider

O.K., I did a little research on the net and found the cartoons.  Don't click if you're likely to be offended!
I have to say that I don't see anything extraordinary about them, although I can't read the Danish subtitles.

But how would Christians react under similar circumstances? Take a look at this page on the Catholic League's website, and see the interesting entry about the month of May, New York City.


----------



## cuchuflete

Borhane,
Honest speech will inevitably hurt the feelings of some listener.
Not having seen the cartoon, I can only offer generalities.

Should such cartoons be permitted? Yes, without question.
That's a legal point, not an endorsement.

Did the publisher show some combination of ignorance and bad taste?  Probably.  That puts this publisher in the same camp as those who publish many tabloids and magazines around the world.  One has a choice to boycott the publication in response.

A cartoon showing lack of respect for a religious symbol is a spec of dust compared with the bombings that have killed thousands of civilians in Madrid, New York, and elsewhere, all committed, supposedly, by fanatics who thought they were acting with religious motivation and justification.

Is it normal and natural for Muslims to be offended by the cartoons that demeaned their religion?  Of course.  Should they be far more offended by the murderous excesses committed in the name of their religion? Of course. 

I don't applaud the insensitivity of such cartoons, but threatening people with death as a result shows at least an equal measure of bad judgment. 

You may vehemently disagree with what I have just written.
You may have hurt feelings about it.  That's what happens in an open and honest dialogue.  You may reply with words that express what you sincerely and profoundly believe.  They may hurt my feelings.  

What is missing is an examination of intent.  If you say something about an external issue, I may disagree or agree, be heartened or upset, but I am unlikely to take it as a personal attack.  If I do take personal offense where none is meant, that speaks more about my own self than about you.

regards,
Cuchuflete


----------



## Gabrielle

I think there is a different approach to jokes about God from Christians and Jews on one hand, and from Muslims on the other hand.
We hear so many jokes starting with ‘One day God went to see Satan…’ or ‘A man dies and says to St Peter…’: nobody would see that as a blasphemy, I know a bunch of catholic priests who sometimes tell this kind of jokes. It takes more 'serious' declarations to be called blasphemy.
I understand jewish humour is also rich of this kind of jokes. In a novel by Primo Levi, the narrator says making fun of biblical themes shows a kind of closeness with God. You can make fun of God without blaspheming, just as you can make fun of a friend without hurting him.
This notion of God’s friendliness (or fatherhood, more like) is less present in Islam, and that may be one reason why Muslims are more sensitive to any profane speaking of God. 
Another reason could be that Islam as it is practised in many countries is quite ‘orthodox’, trying to follow the Prophet’s teachings to the letter, whereas  biblical interpretation is the main part of a rabbi’s education, and the Catholic Church has always rewritten dogmas to fit the political and social trends in Europe. I’m being caricatural, but I think this difference can explain a different understanding of the commandment ‘Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain’.
 
The above arguments may not be totally exact, but my point is that this debate is not just between ‘the pro-freedom-of-speech atheist journalist’ and ‘the stubborn and dangerous integrist’. To give a personal opinion, I’ll say making fun of a religion is like making fun of a disease or a catastrophe: you can, it’s even advisable when your purpose is to blow the whistle, but ask yourself first: is your joke good enough to be worth hurting people’s feelings ?


----------



## Fernando

Outsider, I can not read between lines your comments. I will give you my view:

1) you have written a exclamation mark before the Muslim images and not before the "Christian" images. Why? Because you assume that Muslims can feel outraged and Christians not or simply you do not mind.

2) I find the news your link derscribes disgusting, but certainly I would not ban them (for sure, I would not subsidie them).

3) I do not find Mohammed's images disgusting. If I was a Muslim, I would not be pleased and possibly I would even send a letter to the newspaper.

4) Should both images (Jesus and Mohammed) be allowed? Certainly yes. There is a limit for bad taste, but I would say that they have not trespassed the treshold. In Spanish TV a Jesuchrist was cooked (yes, cooked, in a kitchen). Is that beyond the treshold? No, I do not think so, even when the ONE AND ONLY aim of the performers was to disturb. Have the offended people the right (and duty) to express their dislike? Of course they are.

5) Reaction of SOME Muslims is incredibly stupid, but predictible. What it bothers to me is that the France-Soir director has been fired after publishing some of the images.


----------



## Outsider

Fernando said:
			
		

> Outsider, I can not read between lines your comments. I will give you my view:


I have edited my post a little bit. I hope my ideas are clearer now. With regard to your questions...



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> 1) you have written a exclamation mark before the Muslim images and not before the "Christian" images. Why? Because you assume that Muslims can feel outraged and Christians not or simply you do not mind.


Because I thought the title of the possibly offensive link was self-explanatory in the Christian case.



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> 2) I find both news disgustings, but certainly I would not ban them (for sure, I would not subsidie them).


You mean the cartoons and the film? (They're not news, just parodies...)



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> 3) I do not find Mohammed's images disgusting. If I was a Muslim, I would not be pleased and possibly I would even send a letter to the newspaper.


If they're not disgusting, why send a letter to the newspaper?



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> 4) Should both images (Jesus and Mohammed) be allowed? Certainly yes. There is a limit for bad taste, but I would say that they have not trespassed the treshold. In Spanish TV a Jesuchrist was cooked (yes, cooked, in a kitchen). Is that beyond the treshold? No, I do not think so, even when the ONE AND ONLY aim of the performers was to disturb. Have the offended people the right (and duty) to express their dislike? Of course they are.


I absolutely agree.



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> 5) Reaction of SOME Muslims is incredibly stupid, but predictible. What it bothers to me is that the France-Soir director has been fired after publishing some of the images.


From what I have seen about this affair so far (not very much, I must say!), I have to agree that the reaction to the cartoons seems to have been exaggerated on the Muslim side, and cowardly on the European side. 
But there may well be more to the story.


----------



## I.C.

Gabrielle said:
			
		

> Another reason could be that Islam as it is practised in many countries is quite ‘orthodox’


 "Orthodox" here meaning "intolerant”, "totalitarian" and (even if it’s not an established term) “hegemonising”. 

It’s one thing to be offended by the caricatures – I can understand that - , it’s quite another to threaten perceived blasphemy with murder or to actually react with violence. That I call criminal.

In a way I’m annoyed this is about stupid cartoons, Salman Rushdie was a better case to highlight the problem.
A tolerant society which tolerates militant intolerance is signing its own death warrant. Tolerance to intolerance is simply suicidal. 

By the way: ""Offences to the gods are the concern of the gods." Why would a powerful god need mortals to take his revenge upon them? 
Punishment of blasphemy is about keeping people in line and forcing lifestyles onto others, pluralism being seen as a threat, a disease.


----------



## Fernando

Outsider said:
			
		

> You mean the cartoons and the film? (They're not news, just parodies...)



Yes, I do. For the Catholic League they are news. 



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> If they're not disgusting, why send a letter to the newspaper?



Maybe I have a confussion on the words, but I find the word "disgusting" (Sp. "asqueroso"?) implies "provoking a extreme disconfort", while "disturbing" (Sp. "molesto"?) is less "disgusting". A matter of degrees of disconfort.

Please, let me know if I am misusing the words.


----------



## Outsider

Fernando said:
			
		

> Yes, I do. For the Catholic League they are news.


Ah! Since you wrote 'both news', I thought you meant the Mohammed cartoons and the Jesus film.


----------



## Fernando

Sorry again, my post was really confusing. I referred to "gay Jesus" and the exposition, both of them were separate news in the Catholic League site.

The Mohammed images are less disgusting to me  but, as stated before, I should treat them the same way.


----------



## timpeac

Perhaps I'm wrong - probably am - but I thought the problem was that Muslims _don't allow any image of Mohammed_ to be made rather than that an image was made and it was a caricature making a joke. I _think_ they would have been equally offended if it had been a picture of him sitting looking at the sky. That was the problem as I understand it, not the making fun of the religion. This also sets it apart from, say, Christians who say "we can joke at cartoons of our religion so why can't you".

As to whether they have the right to stop a paper printing what it wants that's a different matter, and I must say I think that the paper was guilty of nothing more than a bit of cultural insensitivity.

The most striking thing I heard on this issue was that Europeans were moving out of the West Bank because they were being threatened. I mean - how ridiculous is that? Muslims are offended by the internal actions of a staunchly European country and yet what is the result? Muslims relocating to a country where they feel more in tune with the local culture? No, some Europeans who have offended no one and have not criticised the culture local to where they live moving out of a Muslim country. Utterly bizarre.


----------



## Fernando

More bizarre things: Both UK and US are criticizing the paper. Incredible.


----------



## Outsider

timpeac said:
			
		

> Perhaps I'm wrong - probably am - but I thought the problem was that Muslims _don't allow any image of Mohammed_ to be made rather than that an image was made and it was a caricature making a joke. I _think_ they would have been equally offended if it had been a picture of him sitting looking at the sky. That was the problem as I understand it, not the making fun of the religion. This also sets it apart from, say, Christians who say "we can joke at cartoons of our religion so why can't you".


I don't see why non-Muslims should have to follow that prohibition...


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> I don't see why non-Muslims should have to follow that prohibition...


 
Nor do I - that was the point of my second paragraph.

What I am saying, trying to clarify, is that it is the _mere representation of Mohammed_ that has caused offence, *not* the fact that that representation was part of a joke, a cartoon (as lots of people in the discussion above seem to think).


----------



## cuchuflete

Let's try turning this around to see how it feels.
Suppose a newspaper in a Muslim country prints a "news" article or editorial or editorial cartoon in which reference is made to Danish Christians as "infidels".  Should Danes take to the streets, and in insulted rage burn flags, and threaten to kill people?


----------



## judkinsc

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Let's try turning this around to see how it feels.
> Suppose a newspaper in a Muslim country prints a "news" article or editorial or editorial cartoon in which reference is made to Danish Christians as "infidels".  Should Danes take to the streets, and in insulted rage burn flags, and threaten to kill people?


No.  I think it's fairly standard for them to call everyone else infidels, already...


----------



## cherine

Ok, I didn't have the intention to join this discussion, I don't like religious discussions very much. But I think I have to clear a point here :
It's not the presentation of the prophet in itself that angered the Muslims, but the fact of rediculizing him, pictruing him as a terrorist carrying bombs and the such.


			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> Perhaps I'm wrong - probably am - but I thought the problem was that Muslims _don't allow any image of Mohammed_ to be made rather than that an image was made and it was a caricature making a joke. I _think_ they would have been equally offended if it had been a picture of him sitting looking at the sky. That was the problem as I understand it, not the making fun of the religion. This also sets it apart from, say, Christians who say "we can joke at cartoons of our religion so why can't you".


I agree that the reactions went a bit too far, but consider that muslims respect their prophet very much, and while they don't ask others to "convert" to Islam -I mean not all muslims want others to convert, and i'm speaking of general muslims not the integrists or terrorists or whatever you call the others- they still expect others to respect their religion and their prophet. Specially that Muslims won't allow themselves to make similar jokes out of Jesus, Moses, or any other God or prophet, out of respect for other peoples' believes.
So all what muslims ask for is this simple : please respect our believes, our God and our prophet, and don't insult them our make fun out of them, just as we won't do of yours -again out of respect.

And, personally, I hope I didn't offend anyone


----------



## timpeac

cherine said:
			
		

> And, personally, I hope I didn't offend anyone


 
Of course not Cherine. I hope that I haven't misled anyone by my understanding of the root of the problem then.

I'm sure that the fact he was being made fun of wouldn't please a Muslim, but I thought the "rule" being broken was that Islam bans the pictorial representation of living things.


----------



## cherine

No. The rule -logically- apply to muslims only. We can't ask people to abide by another religion's rule. But we sure have the right to ask/remind people of respecting the others. Freedom of speech is an essentiel right of every human being. But respect is also a right. 
Allow me to ask another question, hopefully not off topic, does my freedom of speech means that I can -or have the right to- insult you ? our your parent ? or your believes ? Of course not. It does give me the right to criticize "all of the above", but respectfully. No ? Just as we all do here in this beautiful forum  we see people of very different opinions, but each and every one of us respects other people's opinion. I may disagree with you, but sure won't go calling you names -even through an inoffensive caricature.

Cherine


----------



## Outsider

Cherine, can you tell us a little about how the Arab media have been reporting these events? Knowing what I know at this moment, I confess that I feel more sympathetic to the Danish newspapers than to the Muslim protesters, but the news we get on this side of the pond can be a bit one-sided, sometimes...


----------



## tvdxer

Yes, and the same thing happens to Catholics, too, all the time...

It's rather rude, and shows disrespect towards their religion, and should probably be avoided, but at the same time, the angry Muslims are not showing much civility either.  I think I just heard on the radio that 25 death threats were addressed to the cartoon drawer, or something along those lines.


----------



## cherine

Of course Outsider, I can imagine that (something like : look at those fanatics wanting to prevent us from saying what we think, wanting to sponsor our newspaper and limit our freedom).
Well, in "this side of the world"  it's : look at those westerners who insult our prophet, picture him as a terrorist carrying bombs, calling him names and moking him.
The problem is that in Islam -while there's no sanctification of any human being, even the prophet- there's that concept of "great respect" of prophet*s *(notice the "s", i.e. ALL the prophet), to understand this a bit more, picture any conservative or latin society, where religion plays a great role and has a great value in people's life.
So, a muslim can accept your insulting him, but would rise in great revolt if you insult his religion, his prophet or God (any God, except of course pagan gods, like Zeus for example). As I said before : respecting religions is a basic element/teaching of Islam (however might seem out of some stupid peoples' doing), I'm talking about the teaching not peoples doings.

Hope I cleared the picture a bit more


----------



## cherine

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Yes, and the same thing happens to Catholics, too, all the time...
> It's rather rude, and shows disrespect towards their religion, and should probably be avoided, but at the same time, the angry Muslims are not showing much civility either. I think I just heard on the radio that 25 death threats were addressed to the cartoon drawer, or something along those lines.


I agree with you. Some people -not all of them- are acting in a very uncivilized way, over-reacting. I didn't hear of the death threat, and don't agree with them, but unfortunatly we can't control people's reactions when they are so offensed.


----------



## timpeac

I understand your point Cherine, but to me it is just like bullies - if you react and moan about what they have said they do it all the more. The line between nastiness and honest free speech (for example someone who did that caricature just to upset Muslims (as I'm sure is the case) and someone (rightly or wrongly) who believes Mohammed was "evil", say) is so fine that I would hate to see the right to free speech compromised.

If others mock ones beliefs then that's rude and they are idiots - and others will think the same thing, that they are idiots. If you react and scream and rant to such an extent that foreign guests feel they have to leave countries hundreds of miles away that have nothing to do with the original problem then that's just reactionary.


----------



## cherine

I don't say the opposite Timpeac. Reacting and moaning will never put end to people's insulting other people. But look at what you say yourself : they did it on purpose. I don't say that this justifies the "overreacting", but it sure calls for a reaction. The Prophet Muhammed was insulted by his own people who didn't believe him. He didn't react (I know many will come saying that he killed him, but fair people know that he only fought those who fought him first... anyway this is a bit off topic) so being insulted/mocked is a bit "an old thing", the problem is when people do it on purpose, this is ugly, and pushes people to react.

I don't want the free speech compromised, but I also don't want it to be misused, or -in other terms- used as an aliby to offend -and only offend- others. Use your free speech rights to express your opinion, criticise, but not to insult, aint this fair enough to ask ?



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> I understand your point Cherine, but to me it is just like bullies - if you react and moan about what they have said they do it all the more. The line between nastiness and honest free speech (for example someone who did that caricature just to upset Muslims (as I'm sure is the case) and someone (rightly or wrongly) who believes Mohammed was "evil", say) is so fine that I would hate to see the right to free speech compromised.


----------



## Papalote

Outsider said:
			
		

> Generally speaking, I am a big supporter of freedom of speech. However, I feel uneasy about commenting on a cartoon I've never seen, and without knowing anything about the social context in Denmark.
> 
> O.K., let's put it this way: I'm 100% behind freedom of speech (and will defend your right to say things I don't like, etc., etc.), but at the same time some speeches can be imprudent or distasteful.
> 
> I do understand how Muslims may be tired (and scared) of the stereotype that they're all terrorists, which is sadly so popular in the West.
> 
> When Iranian president Ahmadinejad spoke about 'wiping Israel off the map', there was widespread outrage in the West. *Will there be the same kind of outrage here over the cartoons?..*.


 
Hello,

I haven`t seen the cartoons, but I don`t think the cartoons are asking to wipe anyone off the map, so we shouldn`t be comparing the two instances. Moreover, I have experienced muslim intolerance in my university here in Montreal and the abuse I received when I failed to acknowledge that Allah was the only god was beyond what I find acceptable in civilized human beings.

I myself have complained about some radio programs which were uncouth, insulting and shameful. I used my freedom of speech to complain to the radio station about what I perceived as the abusive use of radiowaves invading my space with material which I found offensive. So many other Canadians complained that this programmed was removed from the air. So, freedom of speech does work. There is no need to act in ways which are liable to be criticized, especially when most of the world already has put your group in one single bag, and not a very fair bag either.

Papalote


----------



## timpeac

cherine said:
			
		

> I don't say the opposite Timpeac. Reacting and moaning will never put end to people's insulting other people. But look at what you say yourself : they did it on purpose. I don't say that this justifies the "overreacting", but it sure calls for a reaction. The Prophet Muhammed was insulted by his own people who didn't believe him. He didn't react (I know many will come saying that he killed him, but fair people know that he only fought those who fought him first... anyway this is a bit off topic) so being insulted/mocked is a bit "an old thing", the problem is when people do it on purpose, this is ugly, and pushes people to react.
> 
> I don't want the free speech compromised, but I also don't want it to be misused, or -in other terms- used as an aliby to offend -and only offend- others. Use your free speech rights to express your opinion, criticise, but not to insult, aint this fair enough to ask ?


 
"Yes" in an ideal world but always "no" in reality because there is often a wide disagreement between what is "criticism" and what is "insult".

There are lots of horrible horrible people in the world whose opinions I hate but I wouldn't like to see free speech curtailed. Just ignore them - they just make themselves look stupid. I think the Danish who made the caricature are risible. However, the Muslims who are over-reacting are making themselves look worse. People aren't logical, they don't think "this person has been provoked they are just reacting to that provocation" they just think "this person is irrational". Just ignore people who are making fun of Mohammed. I'm sure he would.


----------



## cherine

Totally agree with you Tim.
And to answer Papalote, I'm sorry for the sad experience you had with intolerant muslims. Maybe you'll be lucky enough to meet the "other type" of Muslims : people respectful of other's freedom of choice.
As for your "suggestion" of civilised way of answering, by using freedom of speech to express anger/sadness and ask for apology, but i'd like to remind you that "this part of the world" is not -yet- a very civilized one in what concerns mutual rights of expressing opinions. We've been living in violence since long time, people forcing their opinions of us upon us and not really giving us a chance to reply (I mean the western occupation, which has only left our country few decades ago).
So please try to understand that people in the East are not -yet- used to this modern or civilized way of speech. And also notice that not all Muslims did the stupid over-reactions, some of them were very rational, specially those living in the West, and many of them -to my knowledge- tried this peaceful civilized style you suggested, but with no result, and that's what helped growing the issue this much.


----------



## cuchuflete

A possible solution here

Satire and caricature are basic ingredients in political cartoons.
Political cartoons are an accepted form of expression in European and American culture. Any and all targets are considered 'fair game' for ridicule and criticism.

A cartoon depicting the Prophet in any way is taboo, and to do so in a demeaning way is highly insulting to Muslims.

This is a point of collision between cultures. To call the cartoonist wrong is to deny him his culture and rights. To expect anything except hurt, insult, and anger from a Muslim is to deny reality.

I see no solution, unless one culture imposes its will on the other.  Or, they have to learn enough about one another to both be more temperate.


----------



## Godfather

I stand in solitary with Denmark and the freedom of speech. People should try not to get intimidated because of some actions of blinded fundamentalists. Everyone who bows down is a hypocrite in my opinion. What's next? Newspapers are not allowed to write anything critical about politics in Islamic countries?


----------



## SpiceMan

Its ok as long as the joke is funny... if not, they deserve whatever reaction the get for wasting my time.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Do any of you know why this is on the news now if it happened last year?

And why is it considered a Denmark thing and not something done by some individuals in a newspaper for its readers?

there should be a balance, if the reaction exceeds the offense, it loses its validity, doesn't it.


----------



## LV4-26

Prophet Muhammed is pictured as a terrorist carrying a bomb. Not being a Muslim, I have no opinion about how serious an offense that can be felt. My point is elsewhere. Besides offending a prophet and a religion, this cartoon is also (and , to me, mainly) a generalization. It tends to suggests that all Muslims are potential terrorists, that the muslim religion in itself implies terror. And that idea is already too much present in some western people's minds. 
My point is that that cartoon mainly offends* tolerant *(i.e. true)muslims, those who do *not* inflict death threats.

As for the others, extremists, fundamentalists and, most of all, terrorists, those who do inflict death threats,
1) they don't need that alibi to justify their violence. (anyway, I believe that justifications to violence are always fake, the only motive for violence is violence itself).
2) they should somehow approve of this cartoon. They claim that Muhammed is the one who inspires them, who orders them to drop their bombs. So why would they not agree with the cartoon?


----------



## blancalaw

I would say anyone could make fun of anything, including the gods of other nations, but whether it is polite or not is another issue.  If a joke has a target, of course some people are going to become upset.  Unfortunately, for the Muslim terrorist groups, anyone who upsets them becomes their target.


----------



## ps139

With freedom comes responsibility. If you are going to have freedom of speech, you should be responsible with it. Mocking an entire religion (it was pure blasphemy to them) for the sake of a few laughs is NOT responsible.

I would say that the Muslims who are protesting overreacted, then again I am not Muslim so I really do not know.

But I do find it really strange that the first cartoon came out in SEPTEMBER and only now it is a big deal? In the age of the internet it surely does not take 5 months for a newspaper comic to travel from Denmark to the Middle East....

I do not know what to make of that, but all I can say is that if I were that newspaper editor, I would not permit that cartoon. It is not mature, or decent behavior to mock another person's personal religious beliefs. They are something to be respected because it is something that many of us hold so dearly. To many it is like mocking a member of the family, or even worse.


----------



## Javier-Vega

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Prophet Muhammed is pictured as a terrorist carrying a bomb. Not being a Muslim, I have no opinion about how serious an offense that can be felt. My point is elsewhere. Besides offending a prophet and a religion, this cartoon is also (and , to me, mainly) a generalization. It tends to suggests that all Muslims are potential terrorists, that the muslim religion in itself implies terror. And that idea is already too much present in some western people's minds.


I agree, and I would add that in these times, specially when there is a strong social (and sometimes even legal) pressure against offensive discriminatory remarks about jews, blacks, and almost any other ethnic group, it is particularly shocking to see that muslims seem to be the only exception to this rule. They are pictured daily in the western media as terrorists and fanatics (and even stupid in the Hollywood movies), and there seems to be very few western criticism of that. Given the whole "war on terrorism" background, this is even worse.
I am really not that surprised of the muslim reaction.


----------



## WillyLandron

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Well, there were many people in the West who did make a fuss about it, not necessarily Muslims, as much as about many other statements made by ther deceased Israeli PM.



Did you mean *deceased  *as in dead or ill (who has a disease) ??? When I read that, Ampurdan, I thought Ariel Sharon had died! 

Or are you talking about their assasinated PM, Yizak Rabin?


----------



## deGerlaise

I am afraid that I am one of those people who cannot be conciliatory in any way on this issue. Freedom of speech is a fundamental value of western democracies and this freedom has been won through the course of centuries and has been periodically threatened by authoritarian regimes and dictators, but has been won back each time. Sometimes at great cost. It is a value that is cherished. As I see it, it is now being threatened again. I saw the pictures and fail to see the need for all the viciousness.  I fail to see the need for boycotts, censure, and death threats. How dare Muslim nations lecture Denmark on issues of intolerance when Christians and Jews cannot openly practice their faith in certain Muslim countries, when the destruction of a state is routinely called for, when people dance in the streets at the destruction of over three thousand lives, when journalists are stabbed to death because someone was unable to deal with the truth.  
Western democracies have been incredibly tolerant of the demands of Muslim communities within their midst. I really hope the histrionics displayed in this most recent episode do not start to work against Muslims who live and work in the western democracies. 

 I believe that one should not show disrespect for anyone's religion since Freedom of Religion is another facet of democracies, however no group should be exempt from critical examination. Freedom from reasoned and thoughtful and sometimes satiric criticism is not a freedom that we cherish in the west.


----------



## Outsider

ps139 said:
			
		

> But I do find it really strange that the first cartoon came out in SEPTEMBER and only now it is a big deal? In the age of the internet it surely does not take 5 months for a newspaper comic to travel from Denmark to the Middle East....


Yes, that's strange.


----------



## DDT

Outsider said:
			
		

> Yes, that's strange.



Not that strange...just the umpteenth attempt to manipulate and exploit a piece of news   

DDT


----------



## Outsider

So there was manipulation? By whom?


----------



## I.C.

cherine said:
			
		

> the "other type" of Muslims : people respectful of other's freedom of choice.


 I have a few questions:

Would this include respect for those who choose to be pantheists, agnostics or atheists?

Would this include respect for someone who chooses to change his religion from Islam to Christian faith? 

Is this generally respected or tolerated in mainstream Islam?


> So, a muslim can accept your insulting him, but would rise in great revolt if you insult his religion, his prophet or God (any God, except of course pagan gods, like Zeus for example). As I said before : respecting religions is a basic element/teaching of Islam


 How about respect of belief in gods like Ganesh or Vishnu or respect of animistic religions? Are these respected or is their practice tolerated by Islam?


----------



## Outsider

This is interesting! According to this opinion piece, what triggered the reaction were not the Danish cartoons alone, but other cartoons which were published more recently in Norwegian newspapers. I wonder what they looked like...

P.S. Hmm, but this one seems to say it was the same cartoons.


----------



## DDT

Outsider said:
			
		

> So there was manipulation? By whom?



I simply mean that an irreverent, silly cartoon has been turned into an international affair

DDT


----------



## KittyCatty

DDT said:
			
		

> I simply mean that an irreverent, silly cartoon has been turned into an international affair
> 
> DDT


 
I agree. If the media wasn't so powerful then we would never have heard about this, and there wouldn't be all the demonstrations outside the Danish embassy for example, where some muslims are demanding to 'behead' those against them - these people would have no idea this had happened if it wasn't all over the news and the papers here! Why are they giving it so much coverage? it's just stirring up trouble, bringing up tensions that were already there. I can't help thinking that a few extremists will use this as an excuse to defend their religion in an attack on the countries that have not yet suffered at the hands of terrorism. I think nothing was wrong with the original cartoons and feel that the media has created the uproar here; noone objected until it became fashionable to do this, as designated by the headlines and extensive news coverage.


----------



## cuchuflete

As of today, those who say, "Don't insult my religion!" have taken to burning embassies.   I wonder if this display of fervor will persuade Norway and Denmark to abolish freedom of thought and freedom of the press?  

As far as I can tell, neither the Danish nor Norwegian governments insulted anyone's religion, so I suppose, if the rioters know this, that they believe that they have the right to tell other nations how to manage their press laws.  That's about the same as publishing a cartoon insulting someone's belief system.

I rank the current competition thus:
Satirists: .......... -0.1
Rioters: ............-0.1


----------



## LV4-26

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> As of today, those who say, "Don't insult my religion!" have taken to burning embassies.


I take it you wrote that for the needs of your argument. Of course you know it isn't true. Not for all of them, at least. The French Muslim authorities have decided to sue the newspapers in court instead. And that is OK to me.


----------



## cuchuflete

Jean-Michel,
I should have qualified that to say, "*some *of those who say..."



> Thousands of outraged Syrian demonstrators stormed the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus, setting fire to both buildings.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060204/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings




> Police fired tear gas and water cannons to disperse demonstrators at the Norwegian Embassy *after the Danish building was burned.*


I agree with you that a court is a good place to pursue the debate. It should establish whether or not freedom of the press exists in France, or if the politicallly kerrect movement has extended its idiocy across the Atlantic. 

I have now seen the satirical cartoons, and find them tasteless, offensive, and of poor quality. I don't think that this gives me, within the bounds of my own culture and laws, the right to riot, issue death threats, etc. If the culture and laws of Syria do allow for such a reaction, I wonder why the police are trying to stop at least some of it.

What I find appalling in all of this is not limited to the cartoons themselves and the riots. The BBC has censored itself, publishing extensive news coverage, but not daring to let it's viewers or readers have direct access to the topic of the dispute. Those who wish to form a personal opinion might seek out the web site of the British National Party, which reproduces three of the cartoons.



> Embassies burn in cartoon protest
> ((http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4681294.stm))
> *Syrians have set fire to the Norwegian and Danish embassies in Damascus to protest at the publication of newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.*  Protesters stormed the Danish site amid chants of "God is great", before moving on to attack the Norwegian mission.
> Police fired tear gas to try to disperse crowds at the second site, but protesters broke in and set it ablaze.


----------



## Ana Raquel

They are protraying islam as very violent, giving the reason to the cartoons. It seems they give more importance to the prophet than to God. It is harmful for the peaceful muslims.


----------



## charq

According to BBC News, at a "protest" march in London today in response to the *cartoons *published in a Danish newspaper, among some of the "provocative" placards seen were various with the message *"7/7 is on its way"*, which was later chanted by the "protesters".

According to ABC News, "US backs Muslims in cartoon dispute".  Link


----------



## cherine

This IS sad AND stupid. Some people are so stupid and ignorant that they don't know anything about how to express your opinion in a civilized way.
Muslims of France went to court because they live in France and have learned the western ways of responding to offenses. But those who don't live there and haven't learned these ways, are using the only way they know: riots. Add to this that some persons have great interest in igniting these stupidities even further to help assert the image of : Muslims are violent, terrorists and uncivilized. (sorry if this sounds like the "conspiracy theory", but that's just a though that came to me after I've read posts #61, 62, even if their posters didn't intent that meaning.)


----------



## cherine

I.C. said:
			
		

> Would this include respect for those who choose to be pantheists, agnostics or atheists?


 
There's a verse in the Coran saying «you have your religion and I have mine». It clearly states that every person has a right to choose what they believe and what they don't.



			
				I.C. said:
			
		

> Would this include respect for someone who chooses to change his religion from Islam to Christian faith?


 
Not really. But don't tell me that Christians "respect" a person who changes his religion to Islam either.



			
				I.C. said:
			
		

> Is this generally respected or tolerated in mainstream Islam?
> How about respect of belief in gods like Ganesh or Vishnu or respect of animistic religions? Are these respected or is their practice tolerated by Islam?


Islam mainly respects the religions "of the Book" (i.e. Judaism and Christianism). It's up to the persons, on individual basis I mean, to accept/respect those other religions or not. But not accepting them doesn't mean attacking them. I personally don't like very much the idea of people adoring the sun or the moon.... but that doesn't mean I insult them or call them names or making fun out of them. And I don't think I'm the only one who thinks this way.


----------



## LV4-26

I'm afraid I find it hard to have a definite opinion on this affair. (well, this wouldn't be the first time, anyway ).

On the one hand, while I'm a strong believer in exchange of opinions, everyone presenting their arguments and trying to convince the others or, at least, explaining their ideas and on what ground they're based, so that the others can see what they think of them, I nevertheless think we should always remain as "didactical" (between quotation marks as I'm not sure this word can have a neutral meaning in English) as possible. And *those cartoons* are anything but didactical. They fail to make any point at all. Offending people has always been the worst way to convince them. It puts an abrupt end to all possible discussion and sends back everyone standing even more firmly on their initial position with an added feeling of bitterness (and even paranoia sometimes).

On the other hand, the idea of creating "*taboos"* really annoys me. Forbidding people to make fun of anything is a very bad solution. I want to be able to keep silent because I think what I was going to say is stupid or superfluous and not because I'm not allowed to say it. Now, I'm not always that reasonable and sometimes let out rubbish through my mouth. I suppose that's the price to pay for our freedom and I confide in my brothers to point out that rubbish to me (but not to fine me, put me in jail or kill me for it).

Mmm... let's put the problem another way.
I say offending things or mock some people and this offends my brother. My brother tells me he's been offended (he is entitled to do so. More than that : he *must* do so). What next? Shall I go on and repeat the same things on the ground that I don't want to be deprived of my freedom of expression?


----------



## Godfather

cherine said:
			
		

> This IS sad AND stupid. Some people are so stupid and ignorant that they don't know anything about how to express your opinion in a civilized way.
> Muslims of France went to court because they live in France and have learned the western ways of responding to offenses. But those who don't live there and haven't learned these ways, are using the only way they know: riots.


Riots are the only way they know? Last time I checked they were systematically boycotting Danish products. Who are you kidding?


----------



## cherine

Godfather said:
			
		

> Riots are the only way they know? Last time I checked they were systematically boycotting Danish products. Who are you kidding?


Riots are the sad and stupid things. Boycotting is a right. I have a right not to buy from you if you offended me. Didn't Americans (some of them) boycott French products, only because French didn't want to go to war with them ? Boycotting is neither insulting nor does it kill any one, it's one of the ways to say : I don't like what you do, so I won't deal with you. What's wrong with that ?!


----------



## LV4-26

cherine said:
			
		

> Riots are the sad and stupid things. Boycotting is a right. I have a right not to buy from you if you offended me. Didn't Americans (some of them) boycott French products, only because French didn't want to go to war with them ? Boycotting is neither insulting nor does it kill any one, it's one of the ways to say : I don't like what you do, so I won't deal with you. What's wrong with that ?!


Godfather answered your statement that those who riot "are using the only way they know". I think his answers means "no, they aren't. They also know boycotting".

My answer to Godfather is that those who riot and those who boycott aren't the same. Probably, those who riot (of course, I'm not speaking of those who possibly manipulate them and have got bank accounts in Switzerland and all that stuff) can't even afford to buy Danish products, therefore they're not in a position to boycott them.

Plus, I haven't had the impression so far that cherine was "kidding" anybody.


----------



## Godfather

I'm sorry if I overreacted cherine. What I want to say is: You can't justify these riots in saying they just don't know how to express their opinion in a different way. Maybe it's true for some people but not for the majority. I agree that they have the right to boycott whatever they want.


----------



## cuchuflete

cherine said:
			
		

> This IS sad AND stupid. Some people are so stupid and ignorant that they don't know anything about how to express your opinion in a civilized way.
> ... some persons have great interest in igniting these stupidities even further



The Culture forum moderators have had to remove some posts from this very thread that did exactly what Cherine describes here...tried to incite hatred.  It is the opposite of civil discourse, and only begets violent emotions and a lack of understanding.
So sad.


----------



## cherine

Thank you Cuchu for your understanding 
I said in my first post in this thread that I don't like very much getting into religious discussions, because I know they don't always remain "civilized" 



			
				Godfather said:
			
		

> I'm sorry if I overreacted cherine. What I want to say is: You can't justify these riots in saying they just don't know how to express their opinion in a different way. Maybe it's true for some people but not for the majority. I agree that they have the right to boycott whatever they want.


It's ok Godfather. thanks for the apology, this is nice of you 
As for me, I'm not trying to justify the riots as saying : these people are right in doing this, I'm just trying to "explain" why there doing it. And I also said that other people are using better ways to express their anger at the offence : go to court, boycott, trying to explain to westerns that not all Muslims are terrorists, asking them to not use their freedom of expression to insult what's sacred and very important to us ....


----------



## jjisneo

I think that making fun of gods and prophets is a very serious matter because it brings retaliation which is giong on now and gives excuses for some but not all of these people to join in terrorism.


----------



## borhane

For me , ther's someone after these events , he is trying to sow the hate between Muslims and Westerns......... but reacting like that is the greatest help that can be given by Muslims


----------



## feuerbach

If the gods would take themselves as seriously as we take them, we would be in deep, deep sh*t. Luckily they have a good and healthy sense of humour. Let's learn from the gods and let's cool it.


----------



## ps139

cherine said:
			
		

> There's a verse in the Coran saying «you have your religion and I have mine». It clearly states that every person has a right to choose what they believe and what they don't.


I wish this were actually put into practice.


----------



## charq

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> The Culture forum moderators have had to remove some posts from this very thread that did exactly what Cherine describes here...tried to incite hatred. It is the opposite of civil discourse, and only begets violent emotions and a lack of understanding.
> So sad.


My post in this thread was deleted and definitely did not "try to incite hatred", although the previous one may have done (also deleted).
On the other hand, people carrying placards and chanting *"7/7 is on its way"* (as reported in the BBC News article I mentioned) at a "protest" rally in London, is definitely an example of trying to incite hatred, and in my opinion is a million times worse than some moronic cartoon that was actually published several months ago.
Sad that censorship exists on the BBC and in other places too...


----------



## feuerbach

Actually I found the cartoon "Stop, stop we ran out of virgins" very funny and somewhat true taking into account the increasing number of people who are volunteering to die by strapping themselves with explosives and then blowing themselves into pieces along with innocent bystanders. The cartoon is a good example of witty political and social commentary. As I stated in another thread, gods don't take themselves as seriously as we take them. Otherwise they would have ganged up and done away with all of us a long time ago. In western countries we are more or less allowed to make fun of religion, gods, prophets, etc. People's feelings are hurt but few people kill or are killed as a result.

I think moderate Muslims across the globe should do 2 things. (1) They need to understand that something worse than the cartoon “Stop, stop we ran out of virgins” is the fact that some so-called Muslims allegedly inspired by this hope are wreaking havoc in the world. In other words, moderate Muslims should realize that terrorists are making a joke out of the Coran and Mohammed by interpreting his teachings in a twisted and convoluted way. These cartoons should allow you to start doing a long-neglected self-criticism. (2) Moderate Muslims should also get in touch with and learn from Jehova's Witnesses. These guys are the butt of all jokes but they don't get p*ssed or discouraged. Most importantly, they don't retaliate against you by bombing your house or embassy. We also make jokes about the Pope, Jesus, Saint Peter, the Final Judgment, the Holy Spirit, etc. etc. And, according to  my adoptive president (not the great Kirchner), the gods are still on our side. 

I must qualify a statement I made above. It's not true that the West is as tolerant as some people describe it. In America Latina, and especially in Argentina, some people don't like when other people take God or Jesus lightly. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that "Jesus Christ Superstar" has never been performed in our motherland. I think that there was a bomb threat the only time they tried to stage this musical.


----------



## ampurdan

WillyLandron said:
			
		

> Did you mean *deceased *as in dead or ill (who has a disease) ??? When I read that, Ampurdan, I thought Ariel Sharon had died!
> 
> Or are you talking about their assasinated PM, Yizak Rabin?


 
No, I meant Ariel Sharon. I don't know why I thought he had passed away. Thank you, Willy, and I make my excuses for my disagreeable mistake.


----------



## BasedowLives

Not being a religious person myself, I think that had it been the christian God being made fun of, I don't think it would've caused such an uproar.  I think there's a double standard here.


----------



## cuchuflete

Of course there is a double standard.  It's called two cultures, each of which is generally ignorant of the other.

The standard of one culture allows for satiric drawings, including those which may be highly offensive to some viewers.  The standard of the other doesn't know of or understand that of the one first described, and considers
that a perceived insult must be met with forceful action.
The culture first described doesn't understand what it perceives to be a barbaric response by the other.

Round and round we go, with ignorance fueling hatred. Two standards overlook attempting to understand before acting.


----------



## Sirène

I fully agree with freedom of speech.

Still, I feel the whole thing is being exploited by those who (both in the Christian/western world and in the Muslim/arab world) want to stir up racial hatred and start a war.

_France-Soir_ for one doesn't give a damn about freedom of speech in general, they republished the drawings solely in order to annoy French Muslims. At least that's what I feel.


----------



## Heba

ps139 said:
			
		

> With freedom comes responsibility. If you are going to have freedom of speech, you should be responsible with it. Mocking an entire religion (it was pure blasphemy to them) for the sake of a few laughs is NOT responsible.
> 
> I would say that the Muslims who are protesting overreacted, then again I am not Muslim so I really do not know.
> 
> But I do find it really strange that the first cartoon came out in SEPTEMBER and only now it is a big deal? In the age of the internet it surely does not take 5 months for a newspaper comic to travel from Denmark to the Middle East....
> 
> I do not know what to make of that, but all I can say is that if I were that newspaper editor, I would not permit that cartoon. It is not mature, or decent behavior to mock another person's personal religious beliefs. They are something to be respected because it is something that many of us hold so dearly. To many it is like mocking a member of the family, or even worse.


 
The reason why people reacted these days is that they waited 4 months for some explanation or apology for the cartoons rediculing prophet Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him). Assuming that what happened was out of ignorance or of cross cultural difference and attempting to avoid any tension, some Muslim diplomats have tried to make it clear for the Danish newspaper editors that what they did offended Muslims so badly. They also tried to make it clear that we have a very religious society here and that such cartoons were very offensive. Unfortunately, the Danish were unable and unwelling to understand, and their response was a kind of a challenge. I remeber that I read that the editor's response was something like ''in your dreams!''. That tone made many people- including myself- believe that this was delibirately done to offend us and to emphasize that generalization of Muslims as terrorists. 

I understand the Europeans' belief in the freedom of expression, but I am shocked at their inability and unwillingness to understand and respect our believes. Yes, everybody has the freedom to express his or her own point of view, but I do believe that this freedom should stop when it starts to hurt others (which is the case here).

In every culture, some close-minded people express their anger in a violent way, perhaps because they are violent by nature or have a quick temper or because they belong to the law-class or are maniplulated or misuded. Those who set the Dansih and Norwegian embassies on fire remind me of those who violated a Muslim cemetery in Bermingham, Uk, about two months ago for example. Of course, I am not trying to justify what happened in Syria, I believe that it is a crime. I am only trying to say that people can sometimes react irrationally on both sides and that those who set the fire do not represent all the Muslims just as those who violated the cemetery do not represent all the British.


----------



## WillyLandron

ampurdan said:
			
		

> No, I meant Ariel Sharon. I don't know why I thought he had passed away. Thank you, Willy, and I make my excuses for my disagreeable mistake.



Hello, my friend.

In English *to make excuses* is *not *to *apologize *or *say you're sorry*. I would have said "I apologize for my mistake."

P.S. You don't need to apologize, Ampurdan (I *love *that name, by the way). I was just trying to find an indirect way to point out that *diseased *and *deceased *are two different things. One too often leads to the other but fortunately not always.


----------



## ampurdan

Thank you again, Willy... Fortunately, there's no need to apologize this time.

Now we have the first death caused by this issue... In Afghanistan. (Well, maybe this casualty has also something to do with it).

I think that freedom of speech does not consist in the right to hurt other people's feelings (be it religious, national, political or whatever), but it inevitably implies hurting the feelings of somebody: if we were to silence any potential hurt-feeling statement or artistic expression, we would be unable to say anything. Of course, I am liable for what I say and I must be held accountable for it. Anyway, this cannot imply more violence that, in some extreme cases, the one the State, after a trial in which all guarantees have been respected, may exercise on me (I hope this makes sense in English): for instance, making defence of genocide it's a crime. Boycott and any other pacific means are acceptable when there's no crime, but normally the most effective is rational speech and some counter-attack joke, if possible.

I loathe some kinds of jokes, and I will try to persuade people all around me to refrain from making them... For instance, I hate a cartoon suggesting that all muslims are potential terrorists, which is what I think they want to convey when I view a cartoon featuring Muhammed as a terrorist (there's the possibility that they're being ironical, though, as someone in this thread has already stated). But I cannot gag them, unless they speak using my name or my property (so, of course WR is entitled to erase some posts).

But if we cannot make fun of Muhammed, we won't be able to make fun of Christ and Moses etc. We won't be able to make fun of Marx, Engels... We won't be able to make fun of politicians... We won't be able to make fun of anybody, if we want to respect the principal of equal rights and be consistent. If you are entitled to make fun of some particular public figure, you are also entitled to make fun of a prophet, saint or godhead. You can hurt feelings making both things. If you refrain from the second one because you fear some violent reaction, the first one will be a little hypocritical.

I don't believe in the Clash of Civilizations speech, I would like to dismantle it. I think all the nations of the World should agree in some fundamental values with independence of any religion, considering we are all human beings subject to suffering and death. A beginning of this fundamental values should be the Declaration of Human Rights, whose _Article 19 _sates:"_Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers_."


----------



## LV4-26

Heba said:
			
		

> In every culture, some close-minded people express their anger in a violent way, perhaps because they are violent by nature or have a quick temper or because they belong to the law-class or are maniplulated or misuded. Those who set the Dansih and Norwegian embassies on fire remind me of those who violated a Muslim cemetery in Bermingham, Uk, about two months ago for example.


 As it reminds me of any collective violent behaviour I have been able to witness or hear about in my life. As I said before, the true motive for violence is violence itself whatever "noble" motive we imagine we have when we are violent. I experienced that myself in the 1972 student demonstrations (even if I didn't burn anything or hurt anybody : mine was only verbal violence). The reality is that nothing beats an exciting atmosphere of riot when you're not sure where life is leading you or even if life makes any sense at all. There's something holy (or would that be "sacred"?) in violence, whether we want it or not (that doesn't mean that the reverse is necessarily true though it may be in some instances). And...OK, yes, I'm a reader of René Girard (_La Violence et le Sacré)_

By the above you understand that I'd bring a slight correction to Heba's sentence 





> perhaps because they are man is violent by nature


.
All we need is realizing it.


----------



## cherine

Saludos Ampudran,
I agree with some of what you said, but there's a part I can't agree with:


			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> But if we cannot make fun of Muhammed, we won't be able to make fun of Christ and Moses etc. We won't be able to make fun of Marx, Engels... We won't be able to make fun of politicians... We won't be able to make fun of anybody, if we want to respect the principal of equal rights and be consistent. If you are entitled to make fun of some particular public figure, you are also entitled to make fun of a prophet, saint or godhead. You can hurt feelings making both things. If you refrain from the second one because you fear some violent reaction, the first one will be a little hypocritical.


You're comparing God and His prophets to "mere mortals" (sorry for the strange expression, didn't find better). Notice that in Muslims countries we CAN'T , yes can't not "don't", make fun or jokes of God or His prophets. We consider it blasphematory and shocking (maybe it's a matter of culture, not only religion). So, -and to answer another forer@- we can't simply "pay back" the joke of Christian cartoonists by making a joke of Jesus, for we respect Jesus very much (even if in a different way, but we do).
We also believe that there is a difference between the freedom of speech and the freedom of insulting and deliberately offending people.
Allow me to give an example : Can any cartoonist in Europe or America make a joke of the Hollocauste ? No. Because he/she will be accused of antisemitism and racism. Isn't it racist to deem a certain group of people of terrorism ? 
One more thing, Denmark unfortunately has been having lately a series of anti-arabs/muslims politics, so we can't simply take these cartoons out of that context. They were made on purpose to say -in an indirect way as it's supposed to be done with cartoons- that Muslims ARE terrorists, that their prophet IS himself a terrorist. I think this is not only insulting and offending, but also a bit racist and infuriating.

P.S. for those who don't read Arabic newspapers, you can't imagine how rich we are of cartoonists. We make fun of our politicians -all the time- of our governors, of OURSELVES, but not of God nor the Prophets nor Religion. I respect other people's opinions about freedom, and I share their opinion about that right being an integral right of human life. I only wish we can get to a sort of "compromise" : Practice your freedom, criticize us as you wish -which is already done by everyone including ourselves- but don't make fun of our believes and don't give us a "new collective noun" (i.e terrorists).
Thanks everyone for the freedom of speech we enjoy sharing in this forum.


----------



## borhane

Sirène said:
			
		

> I fully agree with freedom of speech.
> 
> Still, I feel the whole thing is being exploited by those who (both in the Christian/western world and in the Muslim/arab world) want to stir up racial hatred and start a war.
> 
> _France-Soir_ for one doesn't give a damn about freedom of speech in general, they republished the drawings solely in order to annoy French Muslims. At least that's what I feel.


I fully agree with you dear Sirène


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Of course there is a double standard.  It's called two cultures, each of which is generally ignorant of the other.
> 
> The standard of one culture allows for satiric drawings, including those which may be highly offensive to some viewers.  The standard of the other doesn't know of or understand that of the one first described, and considers
> that a perceived insult must be met with forceful action.
> The culture first described doesn't understand what it perceives to be a barbaric response by the other.


In my opinion, the difference is more political than cultural. It's the difference between a group of people who live in democracies, and are thus used to criticism and even ridicule, and another group of people, who live or have lived until very recently in undemocratic regimes where public criticism is not tolerated.


----------



## I.C.

cherine said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by I.C.Would this include respect for those who choose to be pantheists, agnostics or atheists?
> 
> 
> 
> There's a verse in the Coran saying «you have your religion and I have mine». It clearly states that every person has a right to choose what they believe and what they don't.
Click to expand...

 Isn’t there verse in the Coran that is saying atheists should be killed?


> Would this include respect for someone who chooses to change his religion from Islam to Christian faith?
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. But don't tell me that Christians "respect" a person who changes his religion to Islam either.
Click to expand...

 No, I'm not going to. It is you who started talking about respect that “should” be paid. I don’t think think there is a _right_ to be respected. But the tolerant should be tolerated. 

Still, what does your "not really" mean? Is this tolerated? 


> Is this generally respected or tolerated in mainstream Islam?How about respect of belief in gods like Ganesh or Vishnu or respect of animistic religions? Are these respected or is their practice tolerated by Islam?
> 
> 
> 
> Islam mainly respects the religions "of the Book" (i.e. Judaism and Christianism). It's up to the persons, on individual basis I mean, to accept/respect those other religions or not. But not accepting them doesn't mean attacking them.
Click to expand...

 What does "not accepting them" and "mainly" respecting the religions of the book mean here?

So does mainstream Islam tolerate other religions, those which are not “of the Book”, and is their practice tolerated in Islamic societies? 


> I personally don't like very much the idea of people adoring the sun or the moon....


 You're free to dislike whomever you want to. There are lots of people I don't like. 


> Use your free speech rights to express your opinion, criticise, but not to insult, aint this fair enough to ask ?


 Are you asking for censorship?

By the way, would you say a majority of Muslims believes in the Coran as the written and unquestionable word of god?


----------



## JazzByChas

I will have to say, in general, a culture's (G)god or prophets are sacrosanct, and considered a very serious and sober subject.  So, to irreverently make satire or fun of someone's religion, gods or prophets is practicing lack of discretion, for one, and basically, being not only rude, but crass and ignorant, and un-caring about the feelings, beliefs and values held by others.

Now, I realize that there are some religions out there that condone cruelty and violence, and though I strongly disagree, and would express this disagreement, I would not make fun of their beliefs.

My $.02


----------



## Heba

I suppose that the Danish newspaper could have avoided the controversy and the trouble if the editors tried to understand not only Islam but also the nature of people here. In the Middle East, religion is a sensitive issue, for both Muslims and Christians. About three years a go, a newspaper published the photos of a monk who was manipulating married women coming to the church and forcing them to sleep with him. The Christians were enraged, and some of their demonstrations were violent. The newspaper was finally banned from being published. A year later, a Christian director produced a movie ''bahib el Sima=- I love Cinema'' picturing the life of an Egyptian Christian family. Christians thought that the movie was offensive because a Christian girl kissed her lover within the church and some other scenes. The Egyptian church itself intervened and the movie was banned in Egyptian theatres. I hope that what I have aforementioned has clarified that religion is a sensitive issue in the Middle East. Religion is still the most important thing in the life of Muslim and Christian middle easterners. In the recent problem, and after four months of discussions, the Danish newspaper showed an unwillingness to understand our culture.​


----------



## I.C.

JazzByChas said:
			
		

> I will have to say, in general, a culture's (G)god or prophets are sacrosanct, and considered a very serious and sober subject. So, to irreverently make satire or fun of someone's religion, gods or prophets is practicing lack of discretion, for one, and basically, being not only rude, but crass and ignorant, and un-caring about the feelings, beliefs and values held by others.


 Would you support censorship?

By the way, I think what Muslims who felt offended could reasonably have done is, to boycot "Jyllandsposten". To complain about possible racist undertones, maybe appealing to a court or a board responsible for code of conduct in the media if this is applicible under Danish law. To hold peaceful demonstrations, asking or demanding for an apology _by the newspaper and the caricaturists_ (and this really is the point), or for reactions from courts or such a board if said did not react, but are prinicpally obliged to under Danish law.


----------



## Heba

ampurdan said:
			
		

> But if we cannot make fun of Muhammed, we won't be able to make fun of Christ and Moses etc. We won't be able to make fun of Marx, Engels... We won't be able to make fun of politicians... We won't be able to make fun of anybody, if we want to respect the principal of equal rights and be consistent. If you are entitled to make fun of some particular public figure, you are also entitled to make fun of a prophet, saint or godhead. You can hurt feelings making both things. If you refrain from the second one because you fear some violent reaction, the first one will be a little hypocritical.


 
I understand your point of view, but as I tried to explain above, religion is sacred in the Middle East (I feel offended if somebody's mocks Jesus or Moses Peace Be Upon them). There is a difference in treating religion and politics here, religion is sacred, politics is not. There are some newpapers which are entirely dedicated to criticizing mocking politicians, and the government does not object to that. Please read my thread above, I hope it clarifies what I mean.


----------



## cuchuflete

JazzByChas said:
			
		

> Now, *I realize that there are some religions out there that condone cruelty and violence*, and though I strongly disagree, and would express this disagreement, I would not make fun of their beliefs.



Sort of like a long list of U.S. Presidents and Army Generals declaring that "God is on our side." when we are at war?
As far as I know, all wars involve violence and cruelty--killing and maiming people.   

The same goes for national leaders of other countries.

I don't think it's religions that advocate cruelty, but the adherents of the religions, distorting and using religion as an
excuse for their own cruel and violent actions.


> I would not make fun of their beliefs.


 Well, just have a look at the war posters of most participants in WWI and WWII, and perhaps the Franco-Prussian War and a few others.
They demonized the enemy.  That's worse than making fun of an adversary.


----------



## Heba

I.C. said:
			
		

> Isn’t there verse in the Coran that is saying atheists should be killed?


 
Perhaps you read an Aya out of  context.If you have read a verse and thought that it encourages killing athiets, please tell me about the verse name and the number of the aya and I will do my best to clarify.


----------



## Alundra

Hi all,

I am astonished  

Muslims haven't overreacted, they "se han pasado tres pueblos"....

I totally agree with freedom of speech. And I think that *there are others very much ways to face this issue*... but never with violence (with so much violence).

I'm so sorry for those ones that haven't blame, but it is the "why" muslims are ill considerate in Occident (In Spain at least), I think...


It is only my opinion...

Alundra.


----------



## Papalote

Hello, everyone

I can understand muslims not liking the cartoons, what I can´t understand is the violence they are generating in the name of religion. As I.C. mentioned, there are other ways in which to protest what is perceived as an insult. Violent methods only put people´s back up and close the door to any kind of dialogue.

There is already a lot of misunderstand and ignorance about Islam. What we are now being given by the media is not helping moderate and non-violent Muslims show us the kind face of Islam. Perhaps they should be the voice of reason here and not religious leaders? As Cuchu so aptly put it: _I don't think it's religions that advocate cruelty, but the adherents of the religions, distorting and using religion as an excuse for their own cruel and violent actions._

I would also like to point out that religion is very important to many people outside of the Middle East. When we feel cirticism of God or our priests, nuns, ministers, rabbis has gone too far, we complain to the source of the criticsm. We don´t destroy property and attack and threaten the people of the country. This is probably the main difference.

I trust I haven´t offended anyone, that is not my intention. I do resent though to be told that only in the Middle East is religion sacred. Perhaps this post will help show that religion is sacred to all religious people. We just show our outrage in different ways.

Regards,

Papalote
_ 


_


----------



## Heba

Excuse me ALundra, I could not understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that Muslims are viewd as violent by nature and that this is why this are ill-considered in the Occident (by the way, thanks for using the word, I have trying to make it clear that part of the problem generates from the unwillingness of the Occident to understand the Oriental culture)


----------



## Heba

Papalote said:
			
		

> Hello, everyone
> 
> I can understand muslims not liking the cartoons, what I can´t understand is the violence they are generating in the name of religion. As I.C. mentioned, there are other ways in which to protest what is perceived as an insult. Violent methods only put people´s back up and close the door to any kind of dialogue.


 
Hello Ppalote,
I had a reply about the violence and the over reaction of some protestors:

''In every culture, some close-minded people express their anger in a violent way, perhaps because they are violent by nature or have a quick temper or because they belong to the law-class or are maniplulated or misuded. Those who set the Dansih and Norwegian embassies on fire remind me of those who violated a Muslim cemetery in Bermingham, Uk, about two months ago for example. Of course, I am not trying to justify what happened in Syria, I believe that it is a crime. I am only trying to say that people can sometimes react irrationally on both sides and that those who set the fire do not represent all the Muslims just as those who violated the cemetery do not represent all the British''.


----------



## ampurdan

Well, Cherine, here we have a little difference I trust we can solve. Making fun of the people who have suffered a terrible death must not be tolerated, because it diminishes the value of human life, both yours and mine; making fun of a godhead does not. Anyway, it's not that easy to took measures against a journal who makes fun of human suffering. I guess that if six million Egyptians had suffered genocide, you would not tolerate anybody make fun of it. Sorry, I can’t equalize this to making fun of godheads…

Moreover, let’s say I’m an atheist, for me Muhammed is just a historic figure, why am I entitled to make fun of Julius Caesar and not of him? For me, making historical criticism of religions is fundamental. I want to launch a theory stating that, let’s say, Judaism was an evolution from Tribal Totems to a Monotheist God, that Christ was just a fake and a remix of so-called pagan and Jewish believes and that Muhammed was just an inspired person who made another mixture with these and other cultural elements. Then I would explain how religions have had a positive and a negative social role and that it is better to keep religious believes in private and base social coexistence in the respect of humankind, rather than in sacred values and divinities. Then what? I cannot say it? I don’t want anybody to hurt, I just want to explain why we should not believe in any religion or, at least, base social coexistence on it. I’m just picturing a hypothetical speech, I don’t want to discuss these particular believes on this thread. If I can criticize a believe, I have also the right to make fun about it.

If we recognize the right to forbid jokes about prophets, we would have to forbid jokes about national figures (let’s say, Benjamin Franklin or Simon Bolivar) and who knows when the list of sacred figures will end up…
The Speech of the Clash of Civilizations states that the respect of Human Rights and Democracy is a peculiar characteristic of Western Culture. This is a thing that some conservatives from the alleged “both sides” agree. They seem interested in making a big conflict about these issues. But, I think some of these values are as present in Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other cultures… Maybe some countries have not undergone the changes that purified these values in North-Western Europe, but they are inherent in any culture and we all can share them if they are conveniently explained. But, Heba, if you want us to understand that religious feelings are so important in your country, please understand that in some other countries freedom of speech is as important or even more (but your post proves that we don't have to blame religion in particular but religion in general, since some Christians and Jews can be very intolerant and react violently in Middle East). Wouldn't you prefer to live in an Egypt where you could see whatever films you liked, without fearing some religious group to force its prohibition?

Having said that, I must say that now I see the real intentions of the Danish Newspaper, they just wanted to make a causal connection between Islam and Terrorism. I find it highly reprehensible, morally vicious and I think that maybe you could do some work in the courts, if you could prove all this to be part of infamy. But government must not do anything against what’s said on the Press, so don’t blame it for not taking measures, and, above all, please don’t take violent measures to try to force it to do so. (By the way, the Danish newspaper, seeing the chain of damages to its country and to European relationships with Muslim countries that their pictures unleashed, have finally apologized).

I don't want to seem condescending towards anybody else's culture, I live in a country that has learned from others the respect of Human Rights, and I think a stronger cultural dialogue between Middle Eastern and European countries would help us all, specially between the Mediterranean countries.


----------



## cuchuflete

Here is part of the problem, or half of the problem, as the flames are fanned by the media together with many readers/viewers who don't penetrate the surface:



> I can understand muslims not liking the cartoons, what I can´t understand is the violence* they* are generating in the name of religion.



I wouldn't be surprised if Muslims in general find the news of the cartoons upsetting.   But Muslims in general are not rioting in the streets, or threatening anyone with death, or torching buildings.  Let's be clear that a few hundred or ten thousand rioters do not represent an entire culture or religion.
Just as a single issue of a single newspaper or a handful of publications do not represent a nation or the people of many nations...

Each of these minorities brings shame to the surrounding majority, but does not represent the beliefs or actions of the majorities.


----------



## Outsider

An interesting, different perspective: post 1, post 2 (warning, this one has a little obscene language).


----------



## I.C.

Heba said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by I.C.
> Isn’t there verse in the Coran that is saying atheists should be killed?
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you read an Aya out of context.If you have read a verse and thought that it encourages killing athiets, please tell me about the verse name and the number of the aya and I will do my best to clarify.
Click to expand...

Someone from a Muslim culture told me, but of course this may be his interpretation. So I am asking you, I don’t speak Arabic. Else I would not have worded a question.

But while we’re at it, what does the Koran say about those who leave Islam, to join Christian faith, say? Is this tolerated?


----------



## cherine

Ok Ampudran, I can understand that many people consider prophets and God as just any other person we can criticise and mock. And here's unfortunately a problem we can't solve unless -I think- people can get to a compromise of respecting ONLY religious subject, but speak of whoever else, however "sanctified" they may be. Do you think it's possible ? Personally I'm not sure, but I honestly hope we -people- can reach a peaceful solution for our differences one day. (soon hopefully) 
And I didn't mean to alleviate the seriousness of the Holocauste, but trust me, Holocaust's value/influence in Jews life is not any more important to Jews (or to Humanity) than God and the Prophet*S* are to Muslims. So, do you think we can -maybe someday- treat them on the same basis of respect ?

As for peaceful reactions, trust me they have been/still are done. Rioteers are thousands, but peaceful people are millions (trust me).

One last thing :


			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Having said that, I must say that now I see the real intentions of the Danish Newspaper, they just wanted to make a causal connection between Islam and Terrorism.


Thank you Ampudran for stating it so clearly. This *IS* the point. I said in a post that Danemark has been carrying lately an anti-arabs/muslims policy, and many people consider these cartoons as a part of this campaign to "demonize" Islam and its symbols. I feared I would be accused of using "the conspiracy theory", but as you state it, I think I might have been right after all.
The problem is that Muslims of the modern world are -not all of them, but unfortunately a great majority of them- are ignorant and easily influenceable. It's very easy to call people to riots, more easy than you can ever imagine. Poverty and ignorance can do wonders ! (in the negative meaning of the term that is).


----------



## JazzByChas

Cuchu said:
			
		

> Sort of like a long list of U.S. Presidents and Army Generals declaring that "God is on our side." when we are at war?
> As far as I know, all wars involve violence and cruelty--killing and maiming people.
> 
> The same goes for national leaders of other countries.


 
I believe I would agree, Cuchu, that war is not an act of rational thinking, but a poor way to settle arguments between countries. People will come up with all sorts of rationalizations to fight a war, including "God is on our side." 

Is war necessary, even as a police action? Well, unfortunately, as long as there are human beings, there will be wars...we haven't arrived at that enlightened state where we can function without having hatred or hurt feelings or anger factoring into the equation.



			
				Cuchu said:
			
		

> I don't think it's religions that advocate cruelty, but the adherents of the religions, distorting and using religion as an
> excuse for their own cruel and violent actions


 
Again, (and I believe we touched upon this before) that people, not religions are cruel, and advocate cruelty and violence in the name of "religion." And usually to further their own perverse agenda.


----------



## annettehola

No one has the right to speak to others this way:"I order you to do this, and if you will not, I will humiliate you."

This is clearly the deaf and dumb language of ignorants. If violence is added to such an attitude, we then have terror. If it's organised it's called terrorism.

In this case we are faced with and talking about a *minority* of people living in a country where they do not have their biological nor their cultural roots planted. They have shown that they are fanatics, and they have then acted as such in public.

I am against their way. It's not for the burning of the cloth they call my flag, I don't find that thing important, it's because of the violence involved. 

In this case we are at least talking about people that show their fanatic face. In public. Not some covert warfare that we know from North America, fx. 

We now have this choice: 1) To burn their flag in return.
                                    2) To ignore them.
                                    3) To get a dialogue going with them.

No. 3) is clearly the most intelligent. And this is what is taking place at the moment in Denmark. People write about it in the papers, and they do try to get a dialogue going.

I look at it this way: Only a total craphead would figure that if he burned my flag (haaah!! I will burn your flag!!!) I would stop drawing pictures of his religious mental manifistation in a newspaper!
Really! Come on! It's absurd!

And the funniest thing about the whole circus act is this: The drawings were actually published in a newspaper called "Morgenavisen Jyllandsposten," a newspaper known for its - though moderate - rightwing sympathies....

You know, I believe the whole thing is about something else..there is something else they want to say...let's listen then..lend them an ear...

Annette


----------



## cherine

Outsider said:
			
		

> An interesting, different perspective: post 1, post 2 (warning, this one has a little obscene language).


 
Thank you so much for the very interesting links. If I may cote this sentence «When you put the images in question in this background, they *are not as innocent anymore*. They are one small step in a long line of many small, but determined steps on the way to something the world has seen too much of.»
That person said almost what I said about the background being drawn up in the Danish society, it's not exactly a question of "freedom", it's some sort of racist war. Unfortunately Western media help in picturing this as a battle between western freedom and muslim fanatism, even sadder is the fact that they get too much help from a considerable number of muslims.

I.C., I'll look for the verses for you and post them as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience


----------



## Papalote

I´m back with one more comment. I hadn´t read all the posts and was going from last to first when I saw this comment by Cherine: _One more thing, Denmark unfortunately has been having lately a series of anti-arabs/muslims politics, so we can't simply take these cartoons out of that context. _

I was in Copenhagen recently and can say that if muslims/arabs are having problems there it might be because of the lack of respect they themselves have shown to Danish culture. Why otherwise deface  400-year-old buildings with arabic writings? This wasn´t on a few buildings only, these writings were on a lot of the buildings going towards the tourist area and were defacing not just one wall at eye level, but up to second stories on almost every side of these buildings. 

If you want people to be tolerant towards immigrants, perhaps immigrants should be respectful of the city where they arrive. One act of vandalism alone by one single individual will mark all of his countrymen with the same ugly brush. But perhaps that´s what these acts intend, violence to beget more violence?

Papalote (an immigrant)


----------



## Outsider

Papalote said:
			
		

> I was in Copenhagen recently and can say that if muslims/arabs are having problems there it might be because of the lack of respect they themselves have shown to Danish culture. Why otherwise deface  400-year-old buildings with arabic writings? This wasn´t on a few buildings only, these writings were on a lot of the buildings going towards the tourist area and were defacing not just one wall at eye level, but up to second stories on almost every side of these buildings.


Are there no grafitti in Danish, in the buildings of Danish cities?


----------



## borhane

ampurdan said:
			
		

> If I can criticize a believe, I have also the right to make fun about it.
> .


You are really pleasant "amprudan" !!!!
Imagine a historian who keeps researching and learning about Muhammed' life , and when we ask him about the result pf his work , he shows us some cartoons saying that it's  my..............!!!!


----------



## I.C.

cherine said:
			
		

> I.C., I'll look for the verses for you and post them as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience


Take your time. Meanwhile I wouldn’t mind if you answer these:

Are you asking for censorship? 

Would you say a majority of Muslims believes in the Coran as the written and unquestionable word of god?

Is it tolerated in Islamic cultures that people who do not subscribe to a religion of the book, animists, say, live their beliefs?


----------



## ampurdan

Cherine, I just said what I think it was the intention of that particular newspaper, I realized it after having read the complete story about the cartoons. I haven't said that there is a Danish anti-Muslim conspiracy involving their government (I just don't want to be responsible for this statement).

I'm afraid we'll have to respect that in some countries we can make fun of the godheads of the religion of the Book and in other countries we can't.

Anyway, I appreciate very much your opinion.


----------



## ampurdan

borhane said:
			
		

> You are really pleasant "amprudan" !!!!
> Imagine a historian who keeps researching and learning about Muhammed' life , and when we ask him about the result pf his work , he shows us some cartoons saying that it's my..............!!!!


 
Humour helps sometimes considering any subject in a less dramatical way. I don't see why we should keep Gods apart from it. They are too serious.


----------



## cherine

Thank you Ampudran, I appreciate yours too 
And I'm sorry if I misunderstood your words. But I wasn't speaking of the whole Danish government, only the extermist persons there (I think we agree extremism can be anywhere, right ?)

And I don't see anything wrong with keeping serious things serious 



			
				I.C. said:
			
		

> Are you asking for censorship?


No I.C I'm not asking for censorship, I'm asking for decency and respect. It's not very decent being racist, and it's racist to picture a person as a terrorist just because a group of persons misinterprets his words or take him as an aliby for terrorist actions.



			
				I.C. said:
			
		

> Would you say a majority of Muslims believes in the Coran as the written and unquestionable word of god?


No, not the majority of Muslims believes in the Coran as the written and unquestionable word of God, ALL muslims believe so. (only exceptions are those who only muslims because they were born to Muslim parents not because they give any .... about being anything)



			
				I.C. said:
			
		

> Is it tolerated in Islamic cultures that people who do not subscribe to a religion of the book, animists, say, live their beliefs?


As for your third question I'm not sure I can answer it, because at least in my country people are either muslims or christians or laic (if there are other believes in my country, I don't know about them, sorry). But my knowledge is that as long as every person practice their believes in peace and don't attack the others, people can live in harmony together.


----------



## Alundra

Heba said:
			
		

> Are you saying that Muslims are viewd as violent by nature and that this is why this are ill-considered in the Occident


 
I am saying....

Firstly, all the Muslims aren't equal... I think they are all judged alike and it shouldn't be so. And I know everybody isn't equal... 

Secondly, yes, I think they are violent, but not by nature but by religion... and yes, it is one of the reasons....

Thirdly, there are thousands (or millions, better) of believers over the world, and they aren't violents in this way... and they have their god too, and they love him, and they don't like nobody make jokes about their god... but they aren't so much violent...

To me that behavior so violent isn't to be believer.... sorry for the really believers...

Alundra.


----------



## Heba

Alundra said:
			
		

> I am saying....
> 
> Firstly, all the Muslims aren't equal... I think they are all judged alike and it shouldn't be so. And I know everybody isn't equal...
> 
> Secondly, yes, I think they are violent, but not by nature but by religion... and yes, it is one of the reasons....
> 
> .


 
Sorry Alundra, but do not you think that there is some kind of contradiction in what you are saying? you first say that Muslims are not equal and subsequently are not all violent , then you say that their religion make them violent. You are assuming that I am violent just because I am Muslim.

I am so sorry to say that those who tried to stereotype all Muslims as terrorists have succeeded in thir mession.


----------



## Benjy

Heba said:
			
		

> Sorry Alundra, but do not you think that there is some kind of contradiction in what you are saying? you first say that Muslims are not equal and subsequently are not all violent , then you say that their religion make them violent. You are assuming that I am violent just because I am Muslim.
> 
> I am so sorry to say that those who tried to stereotype all Muslims as terrorists have succeeded in thir mession.



i dont think that that is what is being implied at all.

the thing is, everyone with eyes and the capacity to use them knows that not all muslims are terrorists. however, in recent times from a westerners point of view the trend is that all terrorists are muslims.

as for the cartoons, i don't think their censorship is right or desirable. i don't like the precedent or the possible consequences thereof.

i don't think however that we should plumb the depths of ripping it out of what others hold to sacred. i don't like what that says about us either.


----------



## Heba

Alundra said:
			
		

> Thirdly, there are thousands (or millions, better) of believers over the world, and they aren't violents in this way... and they have their god too, and they love him, and they don't like nobody make jokes about their god... but they aren't so much violent...
> 
> Alundra.


 
The generalization you have made about believers of other religions is not accurate.You should have seen the response of Egyptian Christians to the publication of photos showing a monk sleeping with women within the church. They went on violent demonstrations until the newspaper was banned from being published. Egyptian christians never make jokes about God or Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him).

You just cannot understand that violent protests are not restricted to Muslims, and that not all Muslims react in a violent way. You cannot also understand that the issue relates to the respect Muslim and Christian Middle Easterners pay to their religion.


----------



## cuchuflete

Heba, 
Sadly, the stereotyping does happen.

A single newspaper prints a page.  
Suddenly, thousands of people in many countries are acting on the assumptions that 
1) This is common practice in all the press of that country
2) The government approves of and encourages such things
3) It is a nominally "Christian" country, so this must be a widespread viewpoint and practice of all such people

Of course that's all total nonsense, and it still breeds hatred.

Meanwhile,

A tiny minority of people in another region engage in violence.
This leads to some assumptions:

1) This is normal, standard, everyday behavior.
2) All people in that region behave this way.
3) Most people in the region share a religion, so this violence must all be part of what that religion teaches.


Of course this too is all total nonsense, and it still breeds hatred.


Written by a dumb American (aren't all Americans dumb?) who must own a lot of guns (ALL Americans own guns, and are violent people), who eats his meals at McDonalds (Most Americans eat most meals at fast food restaurants) on his way to a right-wing political church service (Most Americans belong to fundamentalist churches, and are very right-wing in their politics).   More total nonsense, but I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of both Danes and Syrians believe it all to be true.


----------



## WillyLandron

ampurdan said:
			
		

> for instance, making defence of genocide it's a crime.


I think that's different in different countries. I understand to it's illegal to be a member of the Nacionalist Socialist Party in Germany but it's perfectly legal in the United States. I don't think you can get sued in court  in the US for saying, for example, that the Holocaust never happened but I am under the impression that publically saying that can get you in quite a bit of trouble in France.

I have not paid much attention to this issue because unfortunately I saw which French newspaper was involved with republishing the "pictures" and told myself : «Seguro que es un disparate si lo publicó *France-Soir*». Afortunadamente este mes no publicarán tantas sandeces pues solo hay 28 días. Ese periódico es muy bueno para envolver el pescado y para limpiar el vidrio. Otro uso no le veo.

Sorry for switching to Spanish. *France-Soir* is, in my opinion, one of the worse papers printed today. What a waste of trees!


----------



## borhane

Alundra said:
			
		

> I am saying....
> 
> 
> Secondly, yes, I think they are violent, but not by nature but by religion...  and yes, it is one of the reasons....
> *I am Muslim but not violent at all*
> 
> sorry for the really believers...
> ahhhhhhhhhh *thanks*
> 
> Alundra.


 

hello Alundra , in stead of to injury the religion , you can insult the extremists instead !!!!!!!! and I'll help you


----------



## ampurdan

WillyLandron said:
			
		

> I think that's different in different countries. I understand to it's illegal to be a member of the Nacionalist Socialist Party in Germany but it's perfectly legal in the United States. I don't think you can get sued in court in the US for saying, for example, that the Holocaust never happened but I am under the impression that publically saying that can get you in quite a bit of trouble in France.


 
One thing is stating that the Holocaust has never happened and another thing is to make "direct and public incitement to commit genocide" which is punishable according to the third article of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which the USA signed in 1988. That's what I meant by "defence of genocide" (apología del genocidio), maybe improperly, since defence is more general than what's said in that article, and may include past genocides, such as the Holocaust.

Anyway, even if it was legal in the USA, it wouldn't be an objection to my reasoning, mainly because I only mentioned it as a (valid) limitation of freedom of speech.


----------



## cubaMania

Heba said:
			
		

> ... the issue relates to the respect Muslim and Christian Middle Easterners pay to their religion...


You have tried to make the point in at least three different posts that Middle Easterns have more respect for religion than do people in other parts of the world.  This is not true.  Religions are sacred everywhere in the world.  That is the definition of "sacred."  That is the definition of "religion."  It is impossible for me to take your arguments seriously when you keep trying to convince us that Muslims have some extra special status above other peoples in your devotion to your religion.

The difference is not in the level of devotion to religious beliefs.  The difference is in the attitudes toward the principles of free speech and the attitudes toward violence.


----------



## Sirène

> One act of vandalism alone by one single individual will mark all of his countrymen with the same ugly brush


I find that kind of thinking really dangerous, it is the very essence of racism.
How can we condemn a whole group for something that has been done by a few individuals ?
It is very unfair.


----------



## cuchuflete

Sirène said:
			
		

> How can we condemn a whole group for something that has been done by a few individuals ?
> It is very unfair.



Yes, it is very unfair, and very dangerous.  It is what was done by the newspaper cartoons, and what has also been done by the embassy burners.  Each found it convenient to generalize.


----------



## WillyLandron

ampurdan said:
			
		

> One thing is stating that the Holocaust has never happened and another thing is to make "direct and public incitement to commit genocide" which is punishable according to the third article of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which the USA signed in 1988. That's what I meant by "defence of genocide" (apología del genocidio), maybe improperly, since defence is more general than what's said in that article, and may include past genocides, such as the Holocaust.
> 
> Anyway, even if it was legal in the USA, it wouldn't be an objection to my reasoning, mainly because I only mentioned it as a (valid) limitation of freedom of speech.


I see what you mean. In the United States, the argument against TOTAL FREE SPEECH is typically that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, even if there is no fire, can cause alot of harm to people and property (here we like to throw that in) so you are not allowed to say just anything you want. If what you say causes or incites people to hurt others you are liable. You can't say things that incite violence and people here *have *been sued for saying things that incite violence particularly White Supremecists.


----------



## Papalote

Sirène said:
			
		

> _One act of vandalism alone by one single individual will mark all of his countrymen with the same ugly brush._
> I find that kind of thinking really dangerous, it is the very essence of racism.
> How can we condemn a whole group for something that has been done by a few individuals ?
> It is very unfair.


 
Hi, Sirene

I hope that because my comment was taken out of context it now sounds like I¨m the one who thinks this. I might have written too fast then. What I meant is that, if one individual does not think before he acts about the consequences of his act (and I am using the masculine gender for facility of writing only  ) and if that individual belongs to a particular group, one of the many unfortunate results and consequences of that act is that a great number of people will think that the whole group acts and thinks that way. That is why I said they end up being painted with the same ugly brush. Also unfortunately, the media will only show what will sell. So even if there are, in this case, Muslims who are against terrorism and riots and violence in general, we do not see it or hear about it. Adn the masses, will not remember individual acts, but all of these acts lumped together, as being the actions of one single entity, bombs in Spain, in England, riots in France, and what is now happening in arab countries. They have all been given a Muslim context instead of an ultra-religious context, and it is all put in the same bag. The same way as the acts of one newspaper editor have placed all of the Western world in the same bag carried by the ultra-religious rioters today.

This happens all over the world. We all live with racism day in day out. Racism is the outlet for ignorant insecure people. And racism usually turns violent. But answering violence with more violence is not the answer. 

All of this makes me wonder who is really behind all of this violence. Who needs an excuse to hide behind the masses to kill. Who is enjoying all this uproar. Who is trying to prove Marx right (religion is the opium of the masses).

I´ve tried to make myself clearer. Perhaps we should start another thread on the reponsibility of the media regarding world news.

Thanks for bearing with me.

Regards,

Papalote


----------



## Alundra

Heba said:
			
		

> Sorry Alundra, but do not you think that there is some kind of contradiction in what you are saying? *No*
> you first say that Muslims are not equal and subsequently are not all violent , then you say that their religion make them violent. Yes, but not to all of them...
> 
> I think that I said in my other post is clear: the Muslims (the most, or one part of them...) are violents... but as they aren't all equals... not all the Muslims are violents... I think it is clear... It can't be generalized.
> 
> 
> You are assuming that I am violent just because I am Muslim.
> 
> I never said such a thing. Sorry if I haven't explained it well...
> 
> I am so sorry to say that those who tried to stereotype all Muslims as terrorists have succeeded in thir mession.
> 
> The first thing I said is: All Muslims aren't equals.. all Muslims aren't  violents...
> 
> I don't know if I explain it well...


 



			
				Heba said:
			
		

> The generalization you have made about believers of other religions is not accurate.You should have seen the response of Egyptian Christians to the publication of photos showing a monk sleeping with women within the church. They went on violent demonstrations until the newspaper was banned from being published. Egyptian christians never make jokes about God or Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him).
> 
> I think Muslims (*not all of them*) are too violents in their answer with regarding others religions... and the most of Occident thinks the same as me. This is that I want to say you... and I'm so sorry it is so
> 
> and that not all Muslims react in a violent way.
> Of course, I think it so, too.
> 
> You cannot also understand that the issue relates to the respect Muslim and Christian Middle Easterners pay to their religion.
> 
> I think believers are believers, here and there and everywhere you go...
> I love to My God as much as you can to love the Yours. Please, you don't put in doubt the believes or faith of the rest of human beings...


 
I respect Muslims although I don't share your believes or your views. 

Alundra.


----------



## I.C.

cherine said:
			
		

> No I.C I'm not asking for censorship, I'm asking for decency and respect.


 As an appeal to good-will or are you thinking of binding law? 

As you are talking of _respect_ again: 
Do _you_ personally respect those who change from Muslim to Christian faith?
Do you think they have the right to do so and do you respect their choice? 

Do _you_ personally respect Hindus, pagans, agnostics, pantheists, atheists, for instance?
Do _you_ think the same respect you ask for when it comes to Muslim beliefs should be displayed to their beliefs, as well?


----------



## Outsider

*Alundra*, the most populous Islamic countries in the world are Indonesia (88.22% Muslim), Pakistan (96.35% Muslim), Bangladesh (88% Muslim), Egypt (91% Muslim), and Turkey (99.8% Muslim). Would you normally describe the inhabitants of these countries as mostly violent?


----------



## Alundra

Outsider said:
			
		

> *Alundra*, the most populous Islamic countries in the world are Indonesia (88.22% Muslim), Pakistan (96.35% Muslim), Bangladesh (88% Muslim), Egypt (91% Muslim), and Turkey (99.8% Muslim). Would you normally describe the inhabitants of these countries as mostly violent?


 
When we talk about religion, yes... they can become (in my opinion) very violents... 

I would like to change my opinion about this... but it is very difficult when they insist in to show the violent face to the world... when the issue is the religion...

Alundra.


----------



## Sirène

> Yes, it is very unfair, and very dangerous. It is what was done by the newspaper cartoons, and what has also been done by the embassy burners. Each found it convenient to generalize.


Cuchuflete, I totally agree that both sides share responsibility on this matter. I also think that publishing the cartoons was a coolly calculated act. Media people are educated people, they know the social context very well - and so they should, since they shape the opinions of the majority.



> This happens all over the world. We all live with racism day in day out. Racism is the outlet for ignorant insecure people. And racism usually turns violent. But answering violence with more violence is not the answer.


I concur.
Papalote,  I hope you did not think I was calling you a racist because that's not at all what I feel you are, I just wanted to point out that singling out whole groups because of the wrongdoings of a few is really dangerous - and yes, the media are responsible for adding fuel to the fire, I wish they would stop, but then they'd stop selling, wouldn't they ?


----------



## feuerbach

cherine said:
			
		

> No I.C I'm not asking for censorship, I'm asking for decency and respect.


Cherine, 

You come across as a moderate Muslim. But if you want to be treated with respect, you need to put yourself in the shoes of those of us living in the West (and in the Middle East too) who aren't Muslims. You have a religion that you love dearly. We also have values that we love dearly. Your assumption is that your faith and religious values should be treated with more respect than my non-religious values. 

The United States has a Bill of Rights. This is what the First Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of  the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the  government for a redress of grievances."

These are just some of the rights and liberties we consider essential in my adoptive country. As you can see, the right to religious freedom goes hand in hand with the right to freedom of speech. How many countries in the Middle East have this type of statement of fundamental rights and privileges? I'm not saying that the United States is better or worse than other societies that choose to deny these rights to their citizens. However, it's the way we have decided to organize ourselves as a society. Other Western countries think the same way too. 

Things are getting out of hand in some Middle Eastern countries. People are dying. Some governments have chosen not to distinguish between a Danish newspaper and the Danish people and government. Your leaders are acting stupidly and irresponsibly. 

 How do we get out of this mess? The West will end caving in.  I think it's time to forget about being principled and do whatever is needed to stop this madness. I don't think that the other side is willing to do it


----------



## cuchuflete

feuerbach said:
			
		

> Your leaders are acting stupidly and irresponsibly.


 Other than the head of the Iranian government, I'm not aware of this.  From where I sit, the governmental authorities are trying, with whatever measure of competence and success, to restrain the rioters.

I do agree with your general point...respect must be bi-directional.  The "West" has no right to try to impose it's cultural values on Muslim nations, and the latter have no right to tell the Danish or any other government to stop a publication from exercising its right to be offensive.

Just as we attempt in this forum, nations must try to maintain civility when they disagree.


----------



## feuerbach

Saudi Arabia and Lybia have already recalled their ambassadors to Denmark. Gulf retailers are pulling Danish products from their shelves and ambassadors are being summoned.

A majority of Danes, however, feel their government and media should not apologize for the cartoons. I feel proud of the Danish people.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”


----------



## cuchuflete

Recalling ambassadors certainly falls within the scope of 'civil discourse'.  Governments do it frequently as a mild form of protest, usually to assuage their own populations.  Boycotts are a peaceful means to show disagreement.  There is nothing bellicose or irresponsible in those acts.

Interesting that the rioters seems to have overlooked who is doing most harm to Muslims...other Muslims!  Sunni and Shia bombing one anothers' mosques in Iraq, and trying to practice ethnic cleansing wherever they can.  

The cartoons make for a nice diversion.  Notice the violence in 
Lebanon spilling over into an attempt to re-kindle a religious civil war there, and attacks on uninvolved countries' embassies...

Not a proud moment for either the Danish newspaper or those protesting.


----------



## cherine

I.C. said:
			
		

> As an appeal to good-will or are you thinking of binding law?


As an appeal to good-will and good-intention (versus ill-intentioned criticism) 



			
				I.C. said:
			
		

> As you are talking of _respect_ again:
> Do _you_ personally respect those who change from Muslim to Christian faith? Do you think they have the right to do so and do you respect their choice?


I, _personally_, believe that each and every person has the right and the freedom to choose whatever believe they like. I feel sad (out of my religious believes) when a muslim chooses to change his/her faith to any other, no only to become christian but even to become atheist. But I respect their choice in the meaning that I don't attack them, don't go calling them names or asking for their death (if that what you're thinking). 



			
				I.C. said:
			
		

> Do _you_ personally respect Hindus, pagans, agnostics, pantheists, atheists, for instance? Do _you_ think the same respect you ask for when it comes to Muslim beliefs should be displayed to their beliefs, as well?


Yes, _personally_, I respect them in the meaning that I don't make fun out of them nor of their Gods. I, _personally_, can't conceive that a person can worship a cow, for example, because a cow is another creature just like ourselves, and I believe that if we are to believe in a God, whatever He may be or be called, that God is supposed to be a _creator_ not _created_. But I never did make fun of those people. If they wish to believe in cows, so be it.

So, to sum up, yes I respect other people's believes and expect the same in return. Thank you.


----------



## cherine

Alundra said:
			
		

> When we talk about religion, yes... they can become (in my opinion) very violents...
> I would like to change my opinion about this... but it is very difficult when they insist in to show the violent face to the world... when the issue is the religion...


Alundra, you seem to believe very much that Islam itself IS a violent religion. This unfortunately is a stereotype. There are terrorists, and as someone here said that not all muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are muslims... well, alright all _current_ terrorists are muslims, but that doesn't make Islam a terrorist religion, just as we can't say that Christianity is a violent religion because of some christians' miseeds.
Allow me to give some examples :
Religious war between catholics and protestants, ITA is christian, the first crusade was done by christians (I hope you know what this particular crusade did to another christian country), the Inquisition was christian and many many innocent people died by its deeds..... Does all these make christianity a violent religion ? Didn't Jesus say "love your enemy" ? So whose fault is it ? Jesus or those who forgot or misinterpreted his sayings ?

Same here, we can't deny there are many verses in the Coran about fighting (not killing) the "infidels", but these verses are always taken out of their context. They were about fighting _back_, not attacking, not killing, not burning.... The fact that many many muslims took these verses out of context or misinterpreted them doesn't make the Coran a hateful book inciting to killing.

So, again as many others said before me : the problem is with people not with(in) religions.


----------



## annettehola

Look, please: 
It started this way actually: A Danish publishing house wanted to publish a childrens book (!) on the theme of Islam. The book was thought to be published with illustrations. Twelve (12) Danish artists were asked to contribute with each one (1) drawing on the theme. "Morgenavisen Jyllandsposten" received 12 drawings all related to Islam. On the 30th of September the 12 drawings were published in the aforesaid newspaper. 
A couple of *Immams* - Islamic fundamentalist leaders - living in Denmark found it deeply upsetting and interpreted it as a direct attack on their religion claiming that The Holy Writ of their religion does not allow any such human-made representations of what they hold most sacred.
One or two, two I think, of the Immams took the 12 drawings from the newspaper and went to their country of origin with them to present them to..who knows? The highest representative of their religious institution? It is not clear. What is clear, though, is that by now the original 12 drawings had grown to 13 in number! And that drawing no. 13 was an image depicting the prophet Muhammed with a pig's snout...*WHO* did that? The truth is, no one has a clue. In Denmark most people believe that is was an Immam who did it. The Danish media asked the Immams who went away with the 13 drawings who it was that made the 13th? No, said the Immams, we found it on the Internet..it was...eh..
WHAT? And why did you take it to show to people you knew would freak out mad? And who are you holding responsible for this? The Danish drawers? That can't be! 
See? If this is a joke, then it's a very, very bad one. It is no joke. It is, as I personally have been thinking all the way through, about something totally, totally different. 
It is, I think, about this: 1) Many muslims live in societies dominated by violence and suppression. Add to this poverty and corruption. Many try to escape and make a new life for themselves elsewhere. Some go to Denmark. When they arrive there they perhaps find it difficult to understand the most fundamental principle underlying Danish culture: _*Ytringsfrihed*_. This means Freedom of Speech and is the base of the Danish _*Grundlov*_, the Constitution. It must be a chock for them being faced with an attitude that does not nurse fear and secrecy when these things have been the norm in the countries they ran away from. I mean what I say. I truly do believe these people have to learn this insofar as they wish to live in Denmark. Simply for the reason that this attitude in itself is a fundamental part of being Danish. I, for my part, have been living outside of Denmark since 1997. I can tell you, that I have learned the necessity of absorbing the culture you live in while at the same time not loosing the traits of your own basic character as a socalled "foreigner." It is, I maintain this, a question of balance. You cannot live in harmony with yourself if you cannot live in harmony with the world that surrounds you. As you cannot live in harmony with yourself if you are not yourself. Balance.
2) As I said yesterday, having someone burning "my flag," does not mean a flying fart to me. I am not nationalistic and nor am I a patriot in that silly sense. But all Scandinavian flags have a cross in them. The cross of Christianity, I should say. Is not this, then, what they are burning? The cross of Christianity? Is not that, then, a religious war? And is not that fanatic? I am not fanatic about my flag. Burn it if you like. But why can't you take it the same way with 12 drawings? 
3) No burnings of flags have taken place in Denmark so far. What is that an expression of? Listen, I think this: That it is not Denmark nor its 12 drawers the thing is about. But it is true, as another member of this forum said in an earlier post, that Denmark for the last 4 years or so have been in the very unfortunate situation of being ruled by a rightwing and, in my opinion, idiotic government. This has made it increasingly more and more difficult for foreigners to live in Denmark, not to speak of entering the country. This is clearly, to my eye, a great ingredient in what is currently going on.
4) One issue that really upsets me: 12 drawers, 12 artists. _*Art without*_ _*Ytringsfrihed?????*_ E-X-C-U-S-E me!! Ridiculous to the bone! And really upsetting. This way I agree with the Danish newspaper.
5) Where I do not agree with the Danish newspaper is here: I think there was malice involved when publishing the drawings. The paper has right-wing sympathies. They should explain themselves. The editor was asked: If you had  known the consequences this would have, would you have published the drawings? The answer was:No, but I could not in my wildest phantasies imagine that the reactions would be so savage. I maintain my paper's right to freedom of speech.
I say: Alright but are you sure that in itself was what you wanted? To underline everyone's freedom of speech? if so, why didn't you also let a Muslim speak in the same article?
5) The Danish premier minister is a talking men's suit in my opinion. He did nothing along the lines of reacting immediately. He should have stepped forward and publically announced these things from the beginning: 1) This is an example of what a newspaper thinks. 2) They have the right to say so 3) It is not Denmark's opinion as such 4) Calm down everyone! Respect on both sides. 
6) I can understand why the Muslims are very hurt. They have been under attack for many, many a year. But it is as if the hatred has gone wild in the last decade or so. Who is the enemy? Why is it necessary to have one? Denmark as a nation has always been peaceful. Denmark has changed. USA sets the order of the day. I do not like it. We have to speak back. Face stupidity and uproot it. But peacefully.
Annette


----------



## cherine

Annette,
I'm sorry for what's happening. I understand your point. And I see you're fair enough to understand -even a little bit- ours 
First allow me to say something : I don't know where you got this story about the 13th picture, all we've been hearing "here" is about 12 only. The one that was the most shocking was the picture about the Prophet carrying bombs on his head, which directly means: this man IS a terrorist, and this is a clear racism and sterotype. If that's what was supposed to be put in a children's books than it's even more serious : do you mean a Danish publisher was going to give children a book picturing a whole religion, or a whole nation as terrorists ? Don't you think this is going a bit too far ?
As for burning the flag, I never thought of such thing as effective in anyway, and between us I'm not sure all those who burnt it did even notice that it holds the cross, they only had in mind the idea of burning the flag and so they did, whatever that flag looks like.

Yes poverty and ignorace are a very dangerous mixture. I wish I had a magic solution for this, but education and civilisation take time, and changing people's mentality takes time too.

Many muslim societies have the right of free speech too, and it's in their constitutions too. But there's always a bit of sensitivity about religions (don't know why exactly, but this is the way it is) so we can go on critcising any one or any topic, but we stay away from religious stuff.



			
				annettehola said:
			
		

> ... But it is true, as another member of this forum said in an earlier post, that Denmark for the last 4 years or so have been in the very unfortunate situation of being ruled by a _rightwing_ and, in my opinion, _idioticgovernment_. This has made it increasingly more and more difficult for foreigners to live in Denmark, not to speak of entering the country. This is clearly, to my eye, a great ingredient in what is currently going on.


Thank you for saying it yourself  So neither you nor I are giving right to what's going on, but I think we agree about (some if not all) of the reasons 



			
				annettehola said:
			
		

> 5) Where I do not agree with the Danish newspaper is here: I think there was malice involved when publishing the drawings.
> ...
> 6) I can understand why the Muslims are very hurt. They have been under attack for many, many a year. But it is as if the hatred has gone wild in the last decade or so. Who is the enemy? Why is it necessary to have one? Denmark as a nation has always been peaceful. Denmark has changed. USA sets the order of the day. I do not like it. We have to speak back. Face stupidity and uproot it. But peacefully.


Thank you for your understanding Annette. Yes, you're right about people should react peacefully, which many are doing. The problem is that peaceful people are not half as loud as violent ones are


----------



## ampurdan

Ok, Cherine, there is malice involved when publishing the drawings, but there's also malice involving Abu Laban, the Imam that has made of all this such a big issue, taking a domestic affair into the international arena which harms both the image of Denmark in the Muslim countries and the image of the Muslim countries in Denmark. The Imam should know that, if for him the Prophet is so important, for Danes freedom of speech is even more in important. Where in Rome, do as Romans do.

EDIT - Sorry, I meant: "When in Rome..."


----------



## annettehola

"First allow me to say something : I don't know where you got this story about the 13th picture, all we've been hearing "here" is about 12 only."

Cherine, this is my answer: It has been in all Danish medias for months now this about the 13 drawings. An Immam, Mr. Laban, had to step down from his post because of it. Because he was caught speaking with 2 tongues. With the one he said to the Danish population that he was very sorry indeed for what had happened, with the other he said to the religious fundamentalists that this represented a victory for his faith. No one listens to him anymore. He has lost all authority on this account.

I also want to say this: That a Danish scientist in MiddleEast studies spoke on Danish TV saying this: It is worth remembering that 60% of the population in very fundamentalist Muslim  countries are people between 15 and 25 years of age. These people often and very profoundly feel that their future is something that does not exist. Religion then, becomes an identity. A cause that will give your life content and justify it when life itself will not.

I believe this to be indeed very important, too. We are talking of frustration here. Mixed with religion. It is a fiery mixture indeed.

I cannot image myself burning others' flags or buildings or threatening the soldiers of another country. (This has happened repeatedly to Danish soldiers in Gaza). This is because I am not fundamentalist. I CAN perhaps get a glimpse of such frustration if I imagine a situation like this, though: Nation after nation telling me that the concept of Ytringsfrihed, that I hold dear-dear, is crap and should be abolished. I would CERTAINLY protest. But I would fight with my pen. Not with my sword. I would fight with my inner fire. Not with the one that burn the houses of others down.
Annette


----------



## cherine

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Ok, Cherine, there is malice involved when publishing the drawings, but there's also malice involving Abu Laban, the Imam that has made of all this such a big issue, transforming a domestic affair to the international arena which harms both the image of Denmark in the Muslim countries and the image of the Muslim countries in Denmark. The Imam should know that, if for him the Prophet is so important, for Danes freedom of speech is even more in important. Where in Rome, do as Romans do.


Yes Ampudran, I didn't deny that malice exists in both sides, and that what made things worse.
Just a little note : I don't think that your calling me a terrorist -for example- while you're in your country, makes it a "domestic affair", you still have called me so. I think this is the way many muslims (if not all) consider the issue.
And I'm not defending that Imam, it's obvious that he's either very very stupid, or very very hypocrit.. or maybe both


----------



## cherine

Hi again Annette,
Answer about the Imam in previous post. 


			
				annettehola said:
			
		

> I cannot image myself burning others' flags or buildings or threatening the soldiers of another country. (This has happened repeatedly to Danish soldiers in Gaza). This is because I am not fundamentalist.[quote/]
> Me neither. And believe me not all muslims are fundamentalists or terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> annettehola said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I CAN perhaps get a glimpse of such frustration if I imagine a situation like this, though: Nation after nation telling me that the concept of Ytringsfrihed, that I hold dear-dear, is crap and should be abolished. I would CERTAINLY protest. But I would fight with my pen. Not with my sword. I would fight with my inner fire. Not with the one that burn the houses of others down.
> 
> 
> 
> You'd fight with your pen and your inner fire because that's what you know, what you've been taught to do. What do you expect from nations of mass illetracy, frustration as you said, and high religious sensitivity ? Lucky enough that there are many among those ignorants who are not ignorants, who know how to express an opinion in a peaceful, respectful and civilised way. Let's hope they become a majority some day soon, this will help a lot in overcoming many of the misunderstandings between the "two sides" of the globe.
Click to expand...


----------



## annettehola

We essentially agree, Cherine.

"The two sides of the globe"? YES. And who has an interest in creating two such opposing sides? 

Think! Think! Who is talking of "saving" the "other" side? Of bringing peace and love and understanding and democracy and education and order into the lives of those on "the other side"? 

Unconditioned the "salvation" is not. THAT is why there are 2 sides today. One is the most powerful one in the world.
The other is frustrated, poor and miserable.

And "the first side" speaks of saving the "other" from worldwide terror???

I have no words.

It cannot surprise many people that the "other" side cannot stay silent forever.

Annette


----------



## cherine

annettehola said:
			
		

> "The two sides of the globe"? YES. And who has an interest in creating two such opposing sides?
> Think! Think! Who is talking of "saving" the "other" side? Of bringing peace and love and understanding and democracy and education and order into the lives of those on "the other side"?
> Unconditioned the "salvation" is not. THAT is why there are 2 sides today. One is the most powerful one in the world.
> The other is frustrated, poor and miserable.
> And "the first side" speaks of saving the "other" from worldwide terror???


 
There has always been 2 sides in the world (East and West/North and South), never one of them thought of "saving" the other. I don't believe the west thinks this way, it's too utopic.
Any way, that's another discussion, off topic, so let's not go there.


----------



## ampurdan

cherine said:
			
		

> Yes Ampudran, I didn't deny that malice exists in both sides, and that what made things worse.
> Just a little note : I don't think that your calling me a terrorist -for example- while you're in your country, makes it a "domestic affair", you still have called me so. I think this is the way many muslims (if not all) consider the issue.
> And I'm not defending that Imam, it's obvious that he's either very very stupid, or very very hypocrit.. or maybe both


 
You know what I mean. Probably the Governments of Muslim countries did not want this issue to leak out, because they knew its consequences... But if you have a public voice that "brandishes" the cartoons in front of the sensitive masses... Then the Governments have to ask for apologies and for measures to be taken by Danish and Global Authorities.

At least in Spain, Press publishes some insults per day, some of which are adressed to other nations (very reprehensible) but as Press is not the legal representative of a State, normally foreign countries do not take offence at them and do not react.


----------



## I.C.

cherine said:
			
		

> But I respect their choice in the meaning that I don't attack them, don't go calling them names or asking for their death (if that what you're thinking).
> (...)
> So, to sum up, yes I respect other people's believes and expect the same in return. Thank you.


 I’m pleased to hear that. 

_Personally_ I respect the civil liberties of those who are tolerant of others and I will attempt to treat _them_ respectfully. 
However, _felt_ respect is something that in my opinion cannot be _demanded_ in a democracy. Personally I think it would be asking way too much of me to _respect_ beliefs which proclaim that I will be suffering in hell as just punishment. Likewise I don’t ask others to respect my beliefs. And I’m wondering a bit whether those who think I'll go to hell do. But I respect their right to be and their civil liberties as I expect them to respect mine. 
This I call _tolerance_, not respect. 
So I’m_ tolerant_ of people who say I will suffer in hell, unless they try to take matters into their own hands, to speed up the process, or unless they try to cut back my civil liberties. 

My personal beliefs are being defamed by fundamentalist Christian preachers on a daily basis. Freedom of speech is a core value. People have died for it. Different Western countries have opted differently to draw a boundary to defamation and slander. Tricky business. But I expect anyone who lives in a Western society to respect the granted freedom of speech. Same goes for equal rights for women.


			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Recalling ambassadors certainly falls within the scope of 'civil discourse'. Governments do it frequently as a mild form of protest,


 The Lebanese Interior Minister had to resign over his failure to protect embassies, but it is curious that Syrian security forces appeared to be “unable” to prevent the burning of embassies. Here’s a link to an English article of Spiegel Online:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399303,00.html

There’s an interesting article about the build-up, too, but it’s in German. I’m wondering whether radical Muslims have singled out a weak adversary to make a step towards pushing their idea of society onto the West. I don’t always like the Spiegel, but as far as the _factual basis_ of stuff in their political section is concerned, they tend to be careful in what they’re saying. 

By the way, I think it would be OK if the newspaper apologises for _the offence_. I feel the Danish prime minister should be free to express _his regret_ that the caricatures were published. But I would be very gravely unhappy if _he, as the head of government, apologised_.


----------



## nopal

I'm wondering , Everybody discuss (-may be not the right word , forgive the approximation please ) ,
debate I'll wanna say anyway : of the feelings of the muslims people with their Allah prophet ....and this 4 months after it did appear in the danish paper : the disease is not as far as toxic as the last avi-flu .
There are many different honorable points of vue about the liberty of this press...
About of the feeling of the people watching their prophet turned into a ridiculous figure  - It is not really the case as I did see by myself , but I'm not muslim and do not believe in any got or Idol neather ; nevertheless the exploding sensitvity of the reactions of my dear beloved italian dead grand-father make me understand that I'm not reactive that much .
-With this point one question please : if the dear beloved respected prophet look ridiculous and is insulted by a bomb hidden in his turban is it that it is ridiculous to HAVE a bomb ? Would he disagree with having hidden it ? Please help me . Does he know someones does ? Is it a shame to show this with some drawings ? 
I've read in this forum many very interestings posts , many .
We all (my guess ) think we can think about .Agree , disagree , the human beeing nature , that stuff .
I'm not that sure .
I work for the television , in a television company . I don't look at the television at home . Hearing of what's told about make think .
What we are in , I think , is a great new beautiful war .Took time to make it happend .The result is . A french man ,André Malraux , political man minister of De Gaule's government  , writer too , said (he was pretty declamatoric )  " The IIIe Millenium will be religious or it will not be ."
He was wrong It will only be a War , that's all .For Money .
A good one that began like this .What we all can see . People in the streets .We are in it , right now .(Thank U CNN ) .
Between our original smiling holy-warrior  Georges W willing to respond to the Tower's Massacre with his overwhelming powered army gone to Kabul for : A goog cruisin' crusade so necessary for his re-election , so urgently required to re-boost the decreasing US economy and consequently not bad for his wallet , by the way .We are used to pay for services , aren't we ?
In front of : You know him .The great bearded operator .
The first real virtual manager . Not even  important  to exist, anybody can replace  .Really clever .
Remenber , do you recall G W Bush & Halliburton used to work together with Bin in those petrol market  ? They still do  . 
 We had lost  our good old  partition  between  red and  free  (?!) that ended with Gorbachev . The world might have begin to think about the way to make the man felicious .
Criticizing the capitalistic-called-liberal system , change it a bit .Take care Beware of what going so bad in Africa , elsewhere ..The turning climate .
No time we have money to make .
Go out of my way ,dreamer .We are your managers .Give me what you got
Play my game .


----------



## Daniel Fournier

Le problème est que les hommes (et les femmes bien entendu) ont tous une facheuse tendance à croire que la vérité est une et unique. Je preferre ne jamais perdre de vue que ma condition humaine est d'être mortel et qu'en tant que tel, l'absolu ne m'est pas accessible, donc mettre en doute toute certitude et me contenter de mon dû: le questionnement. C'est une des reflexions fondamentale de la philosophie stoïcienne -- et, plus proche de nous, existentialiste.

Je comprend que l'on veuille chercher à oublier cette inconfortable pensée "d'être-pour-le-mort" qui nous caractérise (et qu'à fort bien saisie Heidegger), que toutes les religions et coutûmes humaines cherchent à transcender, toutefois LA vérité de l'homme ne reste qu'une vérité humaine.

Dès lors toute déclaration humaine, fut-elle placée sous le sceau d'un prophète ou de tout autre Dieu révélé, reste, de mon point de vue, hautement conjecturale.

L'ironie (au sens socratique) est probablement la meilleure mise en question de tous nos espoirs d'éternité, dont je n'ai que faire, préferrant "de nos vrais bosquets déjà tout le séjour", comme me l'a si bien célébré Mallarmé (Toast funèbre -Tombeau de Théophile Gautier).


----------



## annettehola

True, Daniel Fournier. Truth is not one. And yet? Personally I don't think this is the greatest problem. I think, truth might be one; beauty, f.ex. (Keats). The problem is when you think there can be nothing outside your own truth. In that way I will conclude: Truth for me is when something is beautiful. I cannot define the beauty of others. And they not mine.
Annette


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

I have not hitherto posted, because I have not seen the cartoons.  This is because the Canadian media refused to reproduce them, opting for a written description of the content of some of the cartoons only.  One of the things I value - freedom of information - has been taken from me, and I have to look elsewhere if I want to make an informed decision on the subject.  This is offensive to my own values.

Personally, as has been already mentioned by Cuchu and others, I believe that far greater sacrileges have been committed against religious beliefs by members of these religions (so-called good Christians completely ignoring all the teachings of Christ in their "campaign against terror", so-called good Muslims expressly ignoring the teachings of the Koran and attacking non-combatants, etc.).

Many of the postings on this thread (and much dialogue in other venues) have been of an We/They nature, although some have been more encouraging.  Perhaps if we adopted second person plural, we might change our tone and thought process slightly.  (Ie, some of US find the illustration of religious figures offensive, others among US see it as a non-issue, WE should see what common ground we can find.)  Just a thought.


----------



## I.C.

Also, religious and political views are related. So for instance, I reserve the right to make fun of those, who try to push badly masked religious contents into science classes. To attack their views and goals, in words. Even more so, when a “joke” exposes a fundamental flaw in their thinking. See Spaghetti Monster Theory. Feel free to dislike me for it. I’d do it here, just to prove a point, if I thought these forums had a free speech agenda. But I guess they do not - which I would find understandable, though.

--------------------------------------------------------------


By the way, I found a translation of the Koran into English. Obviously I don’t vouch for accuracy. Interesting, though. http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!


----------



## whatonearth

I have seen the cartoons (even though they have not been published here in the UK) and I have to say they weren't as offensive as I'd imagined them to be (from what I'd read about them)...in fact, broadly speaking, I thought they were fairly poor - neither particularly satirical or witty. Obviously I might feel differently about them if I were a Muslim but, to put things into perspective, last night I saw an episode of South Park in which Jesus Christ went on a killing spree in Bahgdad with Santa Claus, before being shot in the stomach by Iraqi soldiers. Now, I am a Christian but I found it amusing because I could accept it was JUST A CARTOON...now, imagine what the response would be if you replaced Jesus with Mohammed, and Iraqi soldiers with American ones in that scenario...oy oy oy...

Personally, I think it has all been blown way out of proportion and the over-reaction of the media has been indicative of the hyper-sensitivity of the press (certainly here) to anything *vaguely* controversial...ultimately I feel that people do not have a right not to have their views challenged, or at least questioned, on ANY matter including (maybe even especially) religion.


----------



## asm

I think we are too big on freedom of speech, but we do not see the needs of being responsible for it. Freedom of speech works only in relatively stable and democratic societies, but it’s a disaster on unhealthy societies. But who is the first to say they have the right to say theirs is “the truth”. 
I think freedom of speech needs limits; you shouldn’t be entitled to offend others just because; according to my perspective the newspaper did wrong on this issue. However, the reaction is even worse. Boycotting products is OK, but burning down embassies and other buildings is out of mind. This is the typical case where everybody did the wrong thing and all of us are trying to justify one side against the other, as if they were competing. And yes, I think the response is much worse than the event that triggered the rage, however, that does not allow anybody to say the paper did good just because of freedom of speech. 
I can’t imagine the reaction of many Christians if we were to see cartoons making fun of Christ. I know that has happened before with much milder consequences, but they were not aware of who they were dealing with. 
If we think “they” are too radical, think that more people have been killed in (and by) Western/Christian societies than in any other place/culture in history. 
 
We all need to exercise and *limit* our freedom of speech, even here at WR. I’d fight for your freedom of speech, even if I don’t agree, but only if you are responsible. If you don’t care, why should I?
 
 
 




			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> A Danish newspaper's decision to print twelve cartoons featuring Muslim prophet Mohammed (as a terrorist) has made the Muslim comunity all over the World fly into rage. Some French and Norwegian papers have supported the Danish one and have decided to print the same cartoons, arguing that anybody has right to make fun of God. They say that this is what freedom of speech is about... In Muslim countries people is seconding the calls to boycott Danish products and some fundamentalist terrorists now say that Danes, French people and Norwegians are targets... Denmark PM appeared on Al Jazeera to apologize yesterday evening. UNO's Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has said that freedom of speech does not shelter the gibe of religious believes, but also that it should not provoke violent answers...
> 
> What do you think? Are we entitled to make fun of our or anybody elses' gods, saints, prophets and sacred figures?


----------



## Edwin

asm said:
			
		

> If we think “they” are too radical, think that more people have been killed in (and by) Western/Christian societies than in any other place/culture in history.



My knowledge of non-Western history is not good, but I think that non-Western/Christian groups thoughout the ages have been fairly efficient at killing people.  I think it is a problem of humanity in general.

Too bad we humans are not more like our relatives the Bonobos. 



> Sexual intercourse plays a major role in Bonobo society, being used as a greeting, *a means of conflict resolution* and post-conflict reconciliation, and as favors traded by the females in exchange for food. (Wikipedia)



We are perhaps more similar to our other relatives: the Common Chimpanzees:



> Recent observations in the wild have confirmed that the males among the Common Chimpanzee troops are extrordinarily hostile to males from outside of the troop. Murder parties are organized to "patrol" for the unfortunate males who might be living nearby in a solitary state. This does not appear to be the behavior of the Bonobo males or females, which both seem to prefer to "make love" with their group rather than seek "war" with outsiders. (Wikipedia)



It seems that we are pretty closely related to the entire Chimpanzee family (which includes the Bonobo)  but at least the Bonobos seem to have made some improvements to their society since branching off from the human line.  Perhaps some genetic readjustment of the human genome would help.  Closeness of Bonobos to Humanity


----------



## feuerbach

A small Arab movement active in Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark responded to the cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad with a drawing on its Web site of Hitler in bed with Anne Frank. Hitler is shown as saying, "Write this one in your diary, Anne." The Arab European League argued they were using their right to artistic expression just as the Danish newspaper. Let's see how many consulates and embassies Jews burn down as a result. 

France Soir, the conservative French daily, has republished Jyllands-Posten's trouble-making cartoons. It has also commissioned its own new drawing, which depicts "a peeved Mohammed sitting on a cloud with Buddha, a Jewish God and a Christian God, who says: 'Don't complain Mohammed, we've all been caricatured here.'" Now that the representatives of the four major faiths have been lampooned, I'm sure that billions of people will take to the streets and the world will turn into a a battlefield.


----------



## borhane

feuerbach said:
			
		

> It has also commissioned its own new drawing, which depicts "a peeved Mohammed sitting on a cloud with Buddha, a Jewish God and a Christian God, who says: 'Don't complain Mohammed, we've all been caricatured here.'".


It seems funny , is there a web site to see it ?????


----------



## Ana Raquel

annettehola said:
			
		

> We essentially agree, Cherine.
> 
> "The two sides of the globe"? YES. And who has an interest in creating two such opposing sides?
> 
> Think! Think! Who is talking of "saving" the "other" side? Of bringing peace and love and understanding and democracy and education and order into the lives of those on "the other side"?
> 
> Unconditioned the "salvation" is not. THAT is why* there are 2 sides today. One is the most powerful one in the world.*
> *The other is frustrated, poor and miserable.*
> 
> And "the first side" speaks of saving the "other" from worldwide terror???
> 
> I have no words.
> 
> It cannot surprise many people that the "other" side cannot stay silent forever.
> 
> Annette


 
Annette, Saudi Arabia and the countries around the gulf are extrememly rich, no poor and miserable at all.


----------



## annettehola

That's another reason for those that want more. The oil. In fact I was being a bit reductionist in speaking about the entire globe as if it only consists of two halves. It obviously is not the case. There is *at least *one more part, the socalled Third World. A nice name for the robbed ones that cannot ever aspire to belong to any world higher up on the world ladder.

But I'm sure you're right in your observation. I'm not so sure, though, that the wealth of these countries is distributed equally among all its members of society, are you? I think it's the same as we see in almost all countries: A few has so much they don't know what to do with it all because they lost all imagination in the dullness of their lives, and the rest..they can hardly think anymore for the lack of nutrition, warm clothes and a place to stay. 

Do you find it interesting that organised religion (I mean as opposed to personal, subjective beliefs) seem to appeal more to very poor and what we call "uneducated" people? I do. But fanatism is another thing. It exists on both sides: The rich and the poor.

The wealth in the countries you speak of is, I believe, centralised. And centralised wealth almost always leads to oppressive regimes. 

This is my opinion. And this was my point. 

Annette


----------



## Ana Raquel

[COLOR=black said:
			
		

> Annette[/color]]It cannot surprise many people that the "other" side cannot stay silent forever


 
they are not speaking out (the opposite of staying silent I mean) in my view, the people who are instigating the riots are just being fanatics, intolerants, and the people who are destroying things are just having a short time of free adrenalin.


----------



## hald

borhane said:
			
		

> It seems funny , is there a web site to see it ?????


 
The only one I could find was an italian version of the cartoon : http://liberoblog.libero.it/c/img66/blogworld/02/2651/2006/2/z322.jpg


----------



## annettehola

Now you must do me a favour, Ana! Read between the lines I write, please! That way you will discover new things that the words in themselves convey this way because they cannot always say more than they state. By "staying silent" I did not mean to say that the only opposite could be "to speak." No,no, there can be many other opposites; "acting out" could be one, fx. But actually "to speak" is a thing one can do in many ways, don't you agree? There's the spoken word, the written one and the "words" transmitted via body-language among others..In the case of the guys that are momentarily having a fun time starting a little arsonry here and there..ay! the poor guys do not know that not only violence has a tongue to speak with. Yes, Ana, we do agree. What I want is to get to the root of it...you know? I would so much like to know why. I cannot rid myself of the thought that the lack of balance in the world plays a role......-
Annette


----------



## cuchuflete

Annette said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure, though, that the wealth of these countries is distributed equally among all its members of society, are you?


 The so-called rich countries display the same pattern.  Look at the income frequency distribution of the countries with the highest per capita GDP.
They have a larger bulge in the middle, but there are extremes of wealth and poverty, just as in the poorest countries.  

Being rich does not lead to insulting the beliefs of others, any more than poverty justifies arson.  Judgment, decency and wisdom do not correlate with bank balances.


----------



## annettehola

That is true, Cuchu. Yes. 
No, "being rich does not lead to insulting the beliefs of others, any more than poverty justifies arson." Not automatically. It would be terribly generalised thinking saying so. But I do think wealth can be a trap at times. I think it can bring greed with it. And I think greed can poison the judgement of people.
And justice presupposes judgement, I think. But in the world we live in, justice can be bought for money.
So justice sometimes do correlate with bank balances. And if that happens, I should say, decency goes the same way.

Wisdom stands alone.

Why are some countries more violent than others?

Annette


----------



## Outsider

Ana Raquel said:
			
		

> Annette, Saudi Arabia and the countries around the gulf are extrememly rich, no poor and miserable at all.


The country is rich, and some people in it are astronomically wealthy. But the average person...?



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> The so-called rich countries display the same pattern.  Look at the income frequency distribution of the countries with the highest per capita GDP.
> They have a larger bulge in the middle, but there are extremes of wealth and poverty, just as in the poorest countries.


The amount of income inequality is not the same in all countries, though.


----------



## annettehola

Do you think the world would look different without money in it?

Or do you think people will forever steal and kill and abuse and confuse and exploit no matter the circumstances?

There is something wrong with the world. Is it the dough or the people?

Annette


----------



## Fernando

Outsider said:
			
		

> The country is rich, and some people in it are astronomically wealthy. But the average person...?



They are rich by any standard. Illiterate but rich. And Bin Laden was one of the richest.


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider said:
			
		

> The amount of income inequality is not the same in all countries, though.


Exactly what I said: 





> They have a larger bulge in the middle




We are drifting away from the initial topic.  New threads are invited for any and all related discussions.


----------



## Roi Marphille

ups,  
more problems arising    . Check this. Sorry, it's in Spanish.

Edit:
Link in English. 

Edit 2: 
They are f* nuts!!! this is f* insane!!!


----------



## lampiao

> more problems arising    . Check this. Sorry, it's in Spanish.


 
This clearly shows how some people have a serious lack of sense in their heads.
At this moment we need to let things calm down, not to ignite even further the anger clearly demonstrated by many muslims throughout the world.
Sure the way they have demonstrated is completely wrong, and don't ask me for any socio-political reasons why things have develloped this way, but this kind of attitude only gives more of a pretext to extremism.


----------



## Javier-Vega

Fernando said:
			
		

> They are rich by any standard. Illiterate but rich. And Bin Laden was one of the richest.


 
Saudi Arabia does not seem to be that rich. At least, according to this CIA data:

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

Its GDP per capita is in between those of Argentina and Chile. So it may be not very poor, but it is not rich either. You may say it should be rich (because of so much oil), but whatever the reason, it is not that rich.

In any case, the most violent demostrations were not there, but in Syria, Lebanon, Afganisthan and Palestine.


----------



## GenJen54

asm said:
			
		

> I think freedom of speech needs limits; you shouldn’t be entitled to offend others just because;


 While I agree that there is an ethical and moral responsibility attached to “freedom of speech,” limiting it in any way is tantamount to censorship and besmirches the efforts of the men and women who for centuries fought for my right to speak my opinion. 





			
				asm said:
			
		

> I can’t imagine the reaction of many Christians if we were to see cartoons making fun of Christ.


I doubt it would be quite the same. Firstly, these type of editorial cartoons – at least in the US – are so commonplace as to be a ubiquitous part of our society. Whether you agree with them or not, are offended by them or not – they’re there. Jesus has been vilified and otherwise mocked in numerous editorials, cartoons, and on TV. In ours and other “Western”* societies, “we” are accustomed to seeing and reacting to these types of things via peaceful demonstrations and “collective” wisdom. When evangelical Christians have been offended, say, by something on TV, they use the Internet, write letters, boycott, partake in silent protests. These have proven very effective in getting their point across, and in some instances have led to noticeable action, such as the cancellation of a TV show.

Sadly, in the part of the world we are talking about, many of these types of resources are lacking. As such, “taking to the streets” is not only the “only way,” it is the “loudest” way to be heard, and is sure to gain attention. 

To agree with what others have said, the bigger issue is that of education and poverty. Muslims in “Western” countries are not acting out in such a manner. Many are holding very peaceful demonstrations as a means of protesting the cartoons. Muslim students on a college campus nearby are having a candlelight vigil in silent protest. They understand the offense, yet also realize that violence is not the only means to an end in the situation.

I have (finally) seen the cartoons via an online reprint of the _France-Soir_ page. To be honest, most were too small for me to really even get. I can see, however, how the two with the bomb in the turban could be particularly offensive, especially considering they were of a religious icon for whom it is sacrilege even to put a human face to under “normal” circumstances. If this were a picture of Osama Bin Laden, or Saddam Hussein, would reaction have been the same? I doubt it. 

The sad irony, however, is that in a way the cartoons are self-prophesizing. A cartoon is printed depicting Muslims (via personification of Mohammed) as violent. Many Muslims, being offended by the cartoon (because it personifies Mohammed), are reacting *with violence* to protest the publication of the cartoons. Is this the reaction the artist intended? Who knows. But the fact that many people are choosing to react this way, is in some way, fulfilling the “truth” the cartoonist was lampooning to begin with. 

Many peaceful Muslims understand this. Others do not. I only wish the ones who see the “bigger” picture wielded more influence over the ones who do not. 

A final word. The editor of a newspaper in Iran is sponsoring a “Draw Your Best Holocaust” cartoon contest in reaction to the incident. This “tit for tat” type of reaction is equally as juvenile, if you ask me. It will not garner the response intended. In fact, it will probably scant be noticed by those for whom it was intended. And if/when they do see it, they will not react to it because: 1) they will see it for what it is; and 2) they will understand it was done with an express intent to garner a reaction, which they will not give.


----------



## Outsider

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> I can’t imagine the reaction of many Christians if we were to see cartoons making fun of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it would be quite the same. Firstly, these type of editorial cartoons – at least in the US – are so commonplace as to be a ubiquitous part of our society. Whether you agree with them or not, are offended by them or not – they’re there. Jesus has been vilified and otherwise mocked in numerous editorials, cartoons, and on TV. In ours and other “Western”* societies, “we” are accustomed to seeing and reacting to these types of things via peaceful demonstrations and “collective” wisdom. When evangelical Christians have been offended, say, by something on TV, they use the Internet, write letters, boycott, partake in silent protests. These have proven very effective in getting their point across, and in some instances have led to noticeable action, such as the cancellation of a TV show.
Click to expand...

GenJen, earlier on Heba wrote the following:



			
				Heba said:
			
		

> The generalization you have made about believers of other religions is not accurate.You should have seen the response of *Egyptian Christians* to the publication of photos showing a monk sleeping with women within the church. They *went on violent demonstrations until the newspaper was banned from being published.* Egyptian christians never make jokes about God or Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him).
> 
> You just cannot understand that violent protests are not restricted to Muslims, and that not all Muslims react in a violent way. You cannot also understand that the issue relates to the respect Muslim and Christian Middle Easterners pay to their religion.


We have a bad tendency, in the West, to only compare Western Christians with Middle Eastern Muslims (and, even then, only to some Middle Eastern Muslims). 
I know that you noted yourself that Muslims in Western countries have protested more peacefully, but I wanted to take the opportunity to emphasize this point, which is too often forgotten.


----------



## Alundra

Outsider said:
			
		

> I know that you noted yourself that Muslims in Western countries have protested more peacefully, but I wanted to take the opportunity to emphasize this point, which is too often forgotten.


 
Outsider, I think Muslims haven't the same leeway here in the West that in Middle Eastern... Don't you think they feel themself more sheltered in the Middle Eastern countries to show violent protest?

Alundra.


----------



## Outsider

I would say it the other way around, myself, Alundra. I think that Muslims have _more_ leeway in the West, because they're living in stable democracies. In most of the Middle East, they're either living in authoritarian states, or in compromised democracies.

But this is just my ignorant opinion. Why not ask the Middle Easterners in the forum? They know better than any of us...


----------



## Whisky con ron

If freedom of speech was so limitless, there wouldn't be defamation laws/cases (yes, in the Western world).

One side has offended the muslims (the cartoons are racist, face it), and some muslims have over-reacted.

All sides have double standards.


----------



## Whisky con ron

.. furthermore, note how those in the west that are defending their "freedom of speech" (whoever it may offend), are calling for protestors to be jailed for carrying signs that read "behead the Europeans" and the like.  What? Freedom of speech doesn't extend to writing whatever you like in a piece of paper?  See the double standards?


----------



## eironi

Whisky con ron said:
			
		

> .. furthermore, note how those in the west that are defending their "freedom of speech" (whoever it may offend), are calling for protestors to be jailed for carrying signs that read "behead the Europeans" and the like. What? Freedom of speech doesn't extend to writing whatever you like in a piece of paper? See the double standards?


There is quite a difference between an offensive caricature and a death threat, don't you think?


----------



## Alundra

Whisky con ron said:
			
		

> .. furthermore, note how those in the west that are defending their "freedom of speech" (whoever it may offend), are calling for protestors to be jailed for carrying signs that read "behead the Europeans" and the like. What? Freedom of speech doesn't extend to writing whatever you like in a piece of paper? See the double standards?


 
Whisky... they are *calling for protestors to be jailed*... not fire... Do you see the double standard too now? And I'm agree that the cartoons are very offensive... but I think there are more ways to solve the insult...
Alundra.


----------



## Fuzzy1987

I think freedom of speech is not making insults to a leader which is accepted as a Prophet..It is really sorrowful to see those pictures,insults..
Nobody can insult a person,let a prophet..It is really ugly..
I love Jesus and respect him as a person and of course as a prophet..But even if I would hated him like those people which I guess hates Muhammed,I wouldn't do things this disgusting..Because I respect people,and first of all I respect MYSELF..
When I had time I hope I will read the whole thread..
Goodbye everybody..
It is best to love and/or respect...

P.S.:I don't appreciate the overreactions...It is the shame of the people who started it I think..It is best to be silent..It is clear who is the side that would ashame and regret..Whatever all the dark-side of the politics..
Another trap maybe..


----------



## GenJen54

I defend anyone's right to carry a placard with "Down with US," or "Down with Danish" or even "Behead XXXX" or "Behead XXX," if that's the way they feel about it.  I don't agree with these sentiments, but defend their right to express them.

When, however, such "expressions" then turn into action, the so-called double-standard has come full circle.  Freedom of expression stops at acts of agression and violence towards others and others' property.


----------



## hedonist

cherine said:
			
		

> No I.C I'm not asking for censorship, I'm asking for decency and respect.




As far as I am concerned respect is earned, not automatic. The constant persecution, vilification and low level of tolerance shown to people that don't abide by Islamic principles in Muslim countries in general, suggests to me that there is a fair way to go yet before Islam and its practitioners (whether they be extremists or so-called moderates) can reasonably expect that from the non-Muslim world. How are Western countries suppose to react when there are reports of Muslim women that are raped and instead of seeking justice and retribution for the victim, they're treated as if they're the perpetrators of a crime because they've brought shame onto the family. I'm sorry but I can never bring myself to lie and say that that is acceptable and put it down to "cultural differences". That would be nothing short of reprehensible. I find a lot that is deemed perfectly normal in the Islamic faith to be deepy disturbing and despicable and I shouldn't be afraid and intimidated to say that out loud in public if I wish to do so. 

In any case the number of atrocities carried out by Muslims have done far more harm to the world's perception of Islam than any distasteful cartoon printed by an obscure Danish newspaper will ever manage to accomplish. And the recent overreaction of these trivial caricatures has only served to reaffirm that view.


----------



## ampurdan

I don't want to show that kind of respect that means that I cannot criticize religious believes and the way they are used to ruin many people's lifes (be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or whatever); but, Hedonist, innocent believers deserve respect. The people that think that faith should be compatible with respect for Human Rights deserve respect. And the people who are fighting for these rights in societies where there is half-hearted support of them (or none at all) deserve respect and support.

What you've described to be so hateful, fits perfectly the Christian European society before the 18th century. The problem is not their specific creed, the problem is the specific societies in which so violent reactions are unleashed. They need to reach more peace, freedom and progress. We are not helping them if we despise them for believing.


----------



## feuerbach

Whisky con ron said:
			
		

> .. furthermore, note how those in the west that are defending their "freedom of speech" (whoever it may offend), are calling for protestors to be jailed for carrying signs that read "behead the Europeans" and the like. What? Freedom of speech doesn't extend to writing whatever you like in a piece of paper? See the double standards?


 
Have you read the signs that pastor Phelps displays outside the funeral of soldiers who died in Iraq? This is what they say, "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Thank God for 9/11." Apparently pastor Phelps isn't a big fan of gays. He says the deaths are God's punishment for U.S. tolerance toward gays. Now 5 states are considering bans on protests in funerals. Proposed legislation in Indiana would keep protesters 500 feet from funerals, and make a violation a felony punishable by a three-year prison term and a $10,000 fine. One could say that this measure is commonsensical. I argue that all societies have their own sacred cows or "cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed" that limit their commitment to free speech.


----------



## eironi

hedonist said:
			
		

> distasteful cartoon printed by an *obscure Danish newspaper*


...and not even a recent one at that.
With a fairly unimaginative search on Google you can find websites (and their country of origin) with things much, much worse about Islam (and other religions, of course), so why did they choose to pick up on something published months ago in an "obscure Danish newspaper"? Is selective outrage possible?


----------



## feuerbach

eironi said:
			
		

> ...and not even a recent one at that.
> With a fairly unimaginative search on Google you can find websites (and their country of origin) with things much, much worse about Islam (and other religions, of course), so why did they choose to pick up on something published months ago in an "obscure Danish newspaper"? Is selective outrage possible?


 
The same thing happens in the United States. We react to things we see on TV. If it's not on TV, it didn't happen. Reading the newspaper, magazines, books, etc. is passe. Maybe Muslims are also visually-oriented.


----------



## eironi

feuerbach said:
			
		

> The same thing happens in the United States. We react to things we see on TV. If it's not on TV, it didn't happen. Reading the newspaper, magazines, books, etc. is passe.


I absolutely agree 100%.
If Bush or Blair had any sense at all they would forget about looking for Bin Laden and instead try to track down those who have so successfully turned the publication of a tacky cartoon in an obscure newspaper into an international incident and a front page story in every country in the world.
Then, why they've found them, hire them as PR and see if they do an equally good job in changing global public opinion of them both as a pair of imbecilic, moral-less baboons.


----------



## GenJen54

*Putting on a Mod Hat momentarily:*  We are starting to drift a bit off-topic.  Please revert to the original topic at hand.  Thank you.


----------



## Roi Marphille

Ups,  
That French magazine is making big money out of it! Link. 
AMAZING!!!


----------



## Fuzzy1987

The same thing happens in the United States. We react to things we see on TV. If it's not on TV, it didn't happen. Reading the newspaper, magazines, books, etc. is passe. Maybe *Muslims are also visually-oriented*.

Yes it is exactly right..Whole world is visually oriented.I live in Turkey how can I know about that newspapers and that insulting cartoons..

If Bush or Blair had any sense at all they would forget about looking for Bin Laden and instead try to track down those who have so successfully turned the publication of a tacky cartoon in an obscure newspaper into an international incident and a front page story in every country in the world.

I totally agree with you.It is another track for Muslims to show the Muslims to world as if they were overreacting and as if they were bigots..
But I think it is really not the right think to generalize..If some of the Muslims(or so-called Muslims) overreacted/overreacts and do harm to the others,that doesn't mean it is all the Muslims' reactions.Everysociety has a part which are not reflecting the real character of that society.None of them can be perfect.I disapprove of these overreactions as a Muslim..If it is needed to be react it would be just in legal ways.
I interpret all this nothing but as another intrigue towards Muslims.

Those are my little views and thoughts about the happenings...


----------



## annettehola

You know what I think? I think humour is divine. For this reason both gods and prophets should be included in its sacred atmosphere. 
End of story.
Finito.
Ciao!
Annette


----------



## Fuzzy1987

I don't agree with you Anette but I respect you..
Whatever..


----------



## WillyLandron

annettehola said:
			
		

> You know what I think? I think humour is divine. For this reason both gods and prophets should be included in its sacred atmosphere.
> End of story.
> Finito.
> Ciao!
> Annette


Some people just didn't think it was funny. In the US, when a comic makes a joke and nobody laughs, we say that (s)he "bombed." When a comedian is very funny we say (s)he "kills". 

Unfortunately, some people are dying but I don't think they 're laughing. One thing is having the right to say something and another is using that right wisely.

That Danish newspaper has a sad history. Maybe they think we are still in the 1930s when it was a decidely pro-Nazi rag. Times have changed. Your prejudice is your right but if you express it in today's society, you are going to pay.

I have the right to tell my neighbor he's a N****r and frankly I think it would be funny as all Hell if I did. But I shouldn't be surprised when he breaks the law and breaks my jaw after hearing my cute little "joke."

I don't think making fun of God is bad but making fun of a particular religious or ethnic group is disgusting.* The cartoons are racist. *


----------



## Fuzzy1987

I totally agree with Willy..
Humour may be divine unless it is disrespectful to the beliefs of the others..
But it is good to hear this from an objective voice..
Thank you Willy and people like him for supporting the right side for the only reason is that,it is right..


----------



## cuchuflete

There seems to be a little confusion here about the difference between humor and a barbed piece of political satire. I'm assuming that the newspaper was not trying to be funny in any way. It was making a graphic attack.

Who was it attacking? How?
I assume--maybe correctly, maybe not-- that the attack was against those who use bombs, in the name of a religion.  That they are inherently disloyal to the teachings of that religion is another matter. 

I personally find the cartoon offensive, insensative, ineffective, and in bad taste. To call it rascist is one hell of a stretch. What "race" are we talking about?

What is the topic of this thread?



> *What do you think of making fun of gods and prophets?  *



OK?  Someone just wrote that they think it's ok.  You don't agree?  Fine.  How easy and convenient to call them a rascist because they don't share your opinion.  That's not a discussion or a debate, it's defamation.  Just like the cartoon of Mohammed.


----------



## WillyLandron

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> There seems to be a little confusion here about the difference between humor and a barbed piece of political satire.  I'm assuming that the newspaper was not trying to be funny in any way.  It was making a graphic attack.
> 
> Who was it attacking? How?
> I assume--maybe correctly, maybe not-- that the attack was against those who use bombs, in the name of a religion.  That they are inherently disloyal to the teachings of that religion is another matter.
> 
> I personally find the cartoon offensive, insensative, ineffective, and in bad taste.  To call it rascist is one hell of a stretch.  What "race" are we talking about?



I think it's not only racist it's also xenophobic.

Most muslims in Denmark don't have blond hair and blue eyes. Most muslims in Denmark are not _Danish_. So an attack against muslims is by it's very nature xenophobic and racist. That's how I see it.

After they republished the pictures, *France-Soir* had a cartoon with Buddha and Christ et al. sitting on a cloud telling Mohammed to chill the eff out because they all got lampooned too. 

Well, I think they missed the point. Making fun of Christ in a mostly white christian country is not the same as making fun of, let's say, Krishna, in a mostly white christian country. To single out that diety, in let's say, Canada, is not race neutral. It's singling out people who are of a different ethnicity. So what they should have done is have a picture of ETA, IRA, and Timothy McVeigh telling someone from Al-Queada to chill out.

Equating terrorism with Muslims, and with Arabs in the European context is not only stupid and misleading, in that context it's prejudicial, racist, and xenophobic.

I also think it's a mistake to think that religion causes terrorism. Historically, most terrorist groups are not particularly religious at all. Make a list of terrorist organizations and you will find that the religious groups are in the minority.

And I say that as an atheist fundamentalist.


----------



## grumpus

Hi All,
I think anything that demonstrates the absurdity of human religions or belief in god/s is fantastic!!  The latest controversy does just that.   However,  I would argue there is a more sinister motive for the media's making this into an issue and it has a lot more to do with power and racism.  Could discuss if anyone's interested.
Grumpus


----------



## cuchuflete

grumpus said:
			
		

> Hi All,
> I think anything that demonstrates the absurdity of human religions or belief in god/s is fantastic!! The latest controversy does just that. However, I would argue there is a more sinister motive for the media's making this into an issue and it has a lot more to do with power and racism. *Could discuss if anyone's interested.*
> Grumpus



Sure. Open a new thread.  It's a distinct topic.

As to "...the media's making this into an issue..."  I didn't know that the media demonstrated in the streets and torched buildings.  Of course they are milking the story for all it's worth and then some.


----------



## WillyLandron

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Sure. Open a new thread.  It's a distinct topic.
> 
> As to "...the media's making this into an issue..."  I didn't know that the media demonstrated in the streets and torched buildings.  Of course they are milking the story for all it's worth and then some.



Like they have done from the very beginning. But that's their job. People think newspaper people sit around thinking about how they are going to inform us better. It's a business. They want to sell more papers. Car salesmen don't sit around thinking about safer roads. They're car salesmen!

That Danish paper's sales have sky rocketed, by the way. And France-Soir was in serious financial trouble when they reprinted those cartoons. It's all so very cynical.


----------



## cuchuflete

You still haven't told us what "race" you  refer to when calling the cartoons rascist.   





			
				WillyLandron said:
			
		

> I think it's not only racist it's also xenophobic.
> 
> Most muslims in Denmark don't have blond hair and blue eyes. Most muslims in Denmark are not _Danish_. So an attack against muslims is by it's very nature xenophobic and racist. That's how I see it.  What makes you assume that the cartoons were intended for a Muslim immigrant readership in Denmark?   If it's an extreme right-wing paper, as you implied in a previous post, it was probably intended for like-minded people.  Further, you have made a glaring, blatant, and in my opinion, totally unfounded interpretation.
> You seem to think that the point of the cartoon is an attack against Muslims.  Have you considered that it might have been aimed at the very small subset of people who claim to be Muslims and use explosives to further their aims?
> You are falling into the trap of generalizing, which seems to be your own complaint about the cartoon.
> 
> By the way, were the attacks in NY, Madrid, London, Indonesia etc. committed by people who claim to be Muslims?
> Would you call those actions xenophobic and racist?
> 
> 
> 
> Equating terrorism with Muslims, and with Arabs
> 
> *Full stop!  *​
> Now you are being a racist yourself!  Since when does Muslim=Arab?  Who is wielding the wide stereotype brush?
> With what factual justification?
> 
> 
> 
> in the European context is not only stupid and misleading, in that context it's prejudicial, racist, and xenophobic.
> 
> I also think it's a mistake to think that religion causes terrorism. Historically, most terrorist groups are not particularly religious at all. Make a list of terrorist organizations and you will find that the religious groups are in the minority.  Over to you...make your own list of terrorist groups who don't claim religious justification.  What does 'historically' mean?  In the past decade, there have been lots of terrorist acts with supposed religious ties.  The IRA qualifies, as do the World Trade Center murderers, those who placed bombs in London, Madrid, Indonesia, the Philippines...
> We could quibble about Bosnia, but that was terror if not genocide, and was based on religious tribalism.


----------



## WillyLandron

I don't appreciate being called a racist by you. I have never attacked you personally. I don't think I can have a reasonable debate with you since you have turned this into an issue about my personal beliefs. You don't know me and have no right to accuse me of being racist.

I was simply stating my opinion.

I guess that's not allowed here.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

WillyLandron said:
			
		

> Most muslims in Denmark are not _Danish_.



If they have Danish citizenship they most certainly ARE Danish.

Additionally, I suspect that the millions of Muslims in Indonesia, Pakistan, and Nigeria, to name only a few countries, would be somewhat surprised to be automatically classified as Arab or Middle Eastern.

These generalisations damage us all, and are indeed racist (without the extra "s", Cuchu).


----------



## cuchuflete

Willy,
I said that your equating being a Muslim to being an Arab is a racist remark. That is exactly what it is. Ask any Turk, Pakistani or Indonesian or Philippino Muslim if they like it when someone assumes that they are Arab because they follow the teachings of Islam.

Your comment was racist.  In all probability you didn't mean it to be that.  I do not accuse you of racism, but of making a racist statement.  It's a big difference.  

* I apologize if my own wording created any doubts.

*Cuchu


----------



## timpeac

Can I step in and offer a (I know, unasked for!) opinion on the last couple of posts -

Willy - I'm finding the debate you're having here really interesting so I think it would be a shame if you left it - but I think you have taken what said Cuchuflete the wrong way. He is (in my humble opinion) saying that making any racially based assumption, however small, is to some extent racist. I don't think he is calling you racist in the sense that not hiring someone because they are Chinese, say, is racist.

"Racist" literally means "making assumptions or taking actions based on race alone" and I think we are all guilty of that, on occasion.

Edit - just to be clear, I started writing the above before Cuchuflete replied.


----------



## WillyLandron

*FIRST:
*
I naver equated Islam with Arabs. I said that equating Muslims or Arabs with terrorism was stupid and misleading. Doing that in a mostly white country with a muslim immigrant population from non-white countries, I said, was in my estimation racist and xenophobic.

*SECOND :
*
I am well aware of the fact that not all Muslims are Arabs and that not all Arabs are not Muslims but thanks for the news flash.

*THIRD : 
*
Most muslims in Denmark do not have Danish passports so let's put that idea to rest.

*FOURTH :
*
I assume that the newspapers published in Denmark are meant to be read in Denmark. I don't think it's unreasonable for a Danish newspaper to assume that people in Denmark, of any religion or race, can and probably will read a Danish newspaper, published in Danish, in Denmark.


*FIFTH :*

"You are being racist" is an accusation and a personal one.


----------



## Fernando

I have not seen the whole 12 cartoons, but I must say that the cartoon about "We have run out of virgins" is simply hilarious. I am a Roman Catholic, but when I have never laughed as seing "The life of Brian". If I would like to disgust Islamists, I would certainly have done better.

I can understand to be disturbed by the cartoons and maybe (very soft maybe) the author/publisher should be fined, AT MOST. These cartoons have been published in a country where this kind of criticism is allowed.

About Muslims: OF COURSE, not all Muslims are terrorists, but the truth is that terrorists are committing their crimes in the names of Allah/God. I would like to see ONE spontaneous demonstration in a Muslim country against Bin Laden and his mariachi. No, they only demonstrate against a humble (and possibly hateful) cartoonist.


----------



## ampurdan

Fernando said:
			
		

> I would like to see ONE spontaneous demonstration in a Muslim country against Bin Laden and his mariachi. No, they only demonstrate against a humble (and possibly hateful) cartoonist.


 
Well, now that you say it, this is quite true. Has there been any demonstrations against terrorism (on behalf of God) anywhere in the countries of the Umma? Is not this kind of terrorism more shameful for God than a simple cartoon? Sometimes I feel there's not enough criticism between Muslim believers, but I might be wrong... Maybe criticism is not so easily expressed... 

Muslim communities in Spain have not joined any demonstration against cartoons. They have sent some messages to the Danish paper. PM and Turkey's President have signed a joint condemn of attacks and a call for responsability in the use of freedom of speech (they say the cartoons were "moraly reprehensible"). So, Muslims in Spain are happy with it. They have condemned the attacks on embassies (I don't think they have to demonstrate). I think that many of them joined the demonstrations after 11-M in Madrid, by the way.

By the way, the proportion of rioters, compared to the Umma (the Muslim Universal Community) is despicable... But there was also all those demonstrants with banners claiming for the beheading of Europeans (is it not more than merely insulting?).

And there is also that lady, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was born in Somalia but now is Danish. She claims the "right to offend". She is very critical with Islam (the religion of her country of origin) and the way this religion treats women. She was a collaborator of the murdered Leo Van Gogh. So, is not a matter of racism... Is much more complex.


----------



## Alundra

Outsider said:
			
		

> I would say it the other way around, myself, Alundra. I think that Muslims have _more_ leeway in the West, because they're living in stable democracies. In most of the Middle East, they're either living in authoritarian states, or in compromised democracies.
> 
> But this is just my ignorant opinion. Why not ask the Middle Easterners in the forum? They know better than any of us...


 
I'm sure that in my city (and another ones from Spain, too) the amount of Muslims is not enough to riot.... without problems with the rest of the people (not Muslims)... and I think they (perhaps, I'm not sure) would wish to do it. 

But in Middle Eastern they aren't stopped by no one... because (I think ) all of them (or the most of them) think in the same way.. 

But like you... it is my ignorant opinion, too.... 

Nobody answer it...

Alundra.


----------



## borhane

annettehola said:
			
		

> You know what I think? I think humour is divine. For this reason both gods and prophets should be included in its sacred atmosphere.
> End of story.
> Finito.
> Ciao!
> Annette


what are you trying to do honey !!! if you are looking for problems , I should inform you that this isn't the right place for that , I believe in Jesus Moise and Mohamet and I'll never let anybody makes fun about them , it's shameful , you know ! let God and his honourable messengers in peace !!


----------



## Ana Raquel

borhane said:
			
		

> if you are looking for problems


 
boharne, what do you mean?


----------



## borhane

Ana Raquel said:
			
		

> boharne, what do you mean?


???? the meaning is clear I think ! she takes the story at the ease , Gods are funny ............ so we can make fun about them !! point , end of the story !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *so no one can complain !!!*


----------



## lampiao

Borhane, that's her opinion. Whether you or I like it or not. 
Anette has _not_ offended anyone. We should keep our heads calm, and not overreact.
Cheers


----------



## cherine

Fernando said:
			
		

> About Muslims: OF COURSE, not all Muslims are terrorists, but the truth is that terrorists are committing their crimes in the names of Allah/God. I would like to see ONE spontaneous demonstration in a Muslim country against Bin Laden and his mariachi. No, they only demonstrate against a humble (and possibly hateful) cartoonist.


Just a quick answer to this witty remark. Yes Fernando, we had our share of violence too -in the name of the same God we all worship- back in the 90s and then again last year in Sharm el Sheikh. (see here too and here) And there were more than one demonstration. Here's an audio piece of news about the demonstration, I wish I could give you more news, but I thank older news are simply burried in the wide cyberspace 

P.S. the Arabic words in the demonstration say : la ilaaha illa Allah, al irhaab aduwwu Allah (There's only one God, and terrorism is enemy of God)


----------



## feuerbach

Nothing happens in a vacuum. If you don't take into account what was going on in the discrimination department in Denmark during at least the past couple of years, you won't understand why these cartoons were published and why Muslims in that country reacted the way they did. 

According to "The Nation," in April 2003 Zieler, a Danish illustrator, submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons offering a "lighthearted take" (I guess that they were grossly insulting) on the resurrection of Christ to the Danish newspaper _Jyllands-Posten_. According to "The Nation", Zieler received an e-mail from the paper's Sunday editor saying: "I don't think _Jyllands-Posten_'s readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think they will provoke an outcry. Therefore I will not use them." 

Fastforward two years and the same paper --_Jyllands-Posten-- _published twelve cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, including one with him wearing a turban shaped like a bomb with a burning fuse. Let's see. Cartoons poking fun at Jesus are flatly rejected because they could potentially p*ss off Christian readers. Cartoons poking fun at Muhammad are gladly accepted because... yes, they had the potential to p*ss off Muslims. 

I must apologize to Muslim contributors to this thread because I was defending our right to speak freely without knowing what was going on in Denmark. Moreover, I wasn't aware that this newspaper had a bigoted agenda. 

I agree with WillyLandron: these cartoons are racist. The owners of this newspaper (let me guess: they are white) use religion to attack those who are racially and culturally different from them. Again, neither the cartoons nor the violence has emerged from a vacuum. "The Nation" gives us an intersting piece of information: According to the Danish Institute for Human Rights racially motivated crimes doubled in Denmark between 2004 and '05. "These cartoons only served to compound Muslims' sense of alienation and vulnerability," it concludes.

I hope Danes use this horrible experience to reflect on their prejudices and bigotry, even the unacknowledged ones. 

By the way, Willy, I agree with you. You were accused of being a racist and so far no one has (really) apologized to you.


----------



## WillyLandron

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060227/younge


----------



## Edwin

Some people have asked where the various cartoons can be found on the web.  A  Sufi friend just forwarded a link which contains a very large collection entitled Depictions of Mohammed Throughout History. The website states: 



> While the debate rages, an important point has been overlooked: despite the Islamic prohibition against depicting Mohammed under any circumstances, hundreds of paintings, drawings and other images of Mohammed have been created over the centuries, with nary a word of complaint from the Muslim world. The recent cartoons in Jyllands-Posten are nothing new; it's just that no other images of Mohammed have ever been so widely publicized.



The images found at the above link  have been divided into the following categories: 

*WARNING: Some of the cartoons toward the end may be quite offensive to some.* 

    Islamic Paintings and Miniatures Showing Mohammed in Full
    Islamic Depictions of Mohammed with Face Hidden
    European Medieval and Renaissance Images
    Book Illustrations
    Dante's Inferno
    French Book Covers
    Various Eras
    Contemporary Christian Drawings
    Animated TV Parodies
    Satirical Modern Cartoons
    The Jyllands-Posten Cartoons
    Recent Responses to the Controversy


----------



## annettehola

Excuse me. What are you honeying me for? Refrain from that. 
I don't need to look for problems. The are quite a lot already.
You should inform me that this isn't the right place for that? Smile!
Thanks a lot for your information.
Gods and prophets with stern faces and weapons in their hands are not for me. I am convinced the gods - and there are many - are laughing.
Me; too.
Annette


----------



## ampurdan

feuerbach said:
			
		

> I hope Danes use this horrible experience to reflect on their prejudices and bigotry, even the unacknowledged ones.


 
Well, maybe Danes have to reflect... But so must we all the other nations of the Globe, and probably with far more reasons. Denmark has always been an openminded society which has welcomed newcomers. Obviously, not all of Danes do. Many of these newcomers are also critic with their religion, as Danes are critic with their Protestantism. Some Danes are racist, some Muslims are racist too... I don't think it is the point here (xenophobia might be). 

All this issue was only a newspaper fault, not the country's. If people understood that Goverment cannot say to a newspaper what they must and what they must not print, this problem wouldn't have extended to other countries... And I'm afraid this can be used as a way of convincing people to maintain press censorship in many countries.


----------



## annettehola

Just this: 
Was Jesus a man? Yes, Jesus was a man. 
Some years ago the Danish artist, Jens Joergen Thorsen, painted a picture of Jesus. In the picture Jesus had a hard-on. OOhh, no!! A hard-on!! A man with a hard-on! How incredible!! Really! Offensive to the bone!! Ohh, horror unspeakable! It's unheard of! 
Such were the reactions of some. I don't know if they had never seen or heard of an erection before in their lives but I find that hard to believe even using tons of imagination. These selfsame people claimed to be oh-so good people and nice and fine and I am so sure they would all invite you in for Christmas to share the duck and the Bible-reading, amen. Suppose I had been invited? I would have eaten half the duck and drunk a lot of their wine and their beer and their brandy with cream and then I would have produced a long and fat cigar from my pocket, lit it and said:"Thanks for the meal. What do you think now? It's Jesus' birthday today and I will say a few things in his honour. I will talk about love for that was his message." Tears would slowly begin to make their way to the eyes of my hosts. I would say "hmm" and continue like this:"Jesus was life and love. He was a man though he could fly. And he did so often. One day when he was in the air, he spotted a woman on the ground. He folded his wings and made to land. The woman...." WHAT, WHAT WHAT?????? Are you mad??? What is this? Jesus....(they are now red in their faces, on the very point of exploding or imploding, the hosts are)..Jesus..Jesus could not fly! Jesus was not attracted to women! Jesus was...was..was as you just said..love and life, he was..and...and...
- And what exactly? If you god is love and life and what is not, then why wouldn't he love and live?

Why are you killing your gods? Taking all life out of them and denying them love?

Annette


----------



## GenJen54

Annette,

I'm sorry. With the exception of the first three sentences, I fail to see your point. Do you have one? If so, perhaps you could clarify?

I agree in principle that religion - and yes, its icons - should not be "off-limits" as far as humour is concerned. It's all about context and intent. In this particular case (I'm specifically referring to the cartoons of Muhammed with bombs in his turban), both the content and intent were malicious and wrong.


----------



## annettehola

Yes. But not for long. I don't love explanations the way I love imagination.
It's simple, really. Listen: If a guy asks me whether I have a point after I had just having stated that point dressed up in the clothes of imagination then, ay, I'll have to strip that point bare. But we are all different, and so, here is my point in an easy-to-swallow-for-everyone-edition:

1) It is not so good when artists cannot speak their minds freely.

2) People who don't think so much can sometimes be called narrow-minded.

3) If gods and prophets they mean love and life and understanding and people who follow them don't show signs of this themselves when claiming to be believers in it, then methinks that that is not right.

4) Sometimes people can be so strange, GenJen, that they preach peace and love to others and then hammer them. This should not be, no.

Annette


----------



## cuchuflete

> I agree in principle that religion - and yes, its icons - should not be "off-limits" as far as humour is concerned. It's all about context and intent. In this particular case (I'm specifically referring to the cartoons of Muhammed with bombs in his turban), both the content and intent were malicious and wrong.


This is not about humour or humor.  It's satire.  Quite a different matter.  Humor is the mechanism, not the objective.
It's graphic rather than verbal.

Suppose a newspaper prints an article which states...

"Some adherents of XYZ religion, which preaches peace and love, use bombs and guns in support of their supposedly religious cause! This is vicious hypocrisy, and misuse of religion to justify murder."

I can think of a few "major" religions to which this statement can apply.

Now, remove the text, and substitute a drawing.

I find the content of the cartoons malicious and offensive.  I
don't know the intent.  Maybe it was to insult. Maybe it was to
draw attention to the hypocrisy of the murderers, and their abuse of their own religion to justify heinous crimes.


----------



## Fernando

cherine said:
			
		

> Just a quick answer to this witty remark. Yes Fernando, we had our share of violence too -in the name of the same God we all worship- back in the 90s and then again last year in Sharm el Sheikh. (see here too and here) And there were more than one demonstration. Here's an audio piece of news about the demonstration, I wish I could give you more news, but I thank older news are simply burried in the wide cyberspace
> 
> P.S. the Arabic words in the demonstration say : la ilaaha illa Allah, al irhaab aduwwu Allah (There's only one God, and terrorism is enemy of God)



Cherine, I want to thank you for your posts (not only this one). We desperatedly want to see a familiar face in the Islamic world and you can not imagine how much these news raises our opinion on the Islamic world. 

I still think the same but I feel there is some hope. If some people kill in your name there is nothing in the West we can do to stop them. Herds of "martyrs" would arise. It is you who have to stop your scum, the same way we have to stop ours.


----------



## cherine

Thank you Fernando. And trust me I'm not the only muslim who thinks this way, it's only that -as I said before- we're not as loud as bomb throwers.
Yes we have to stop our scum who purpot crimes in our name and the name of our God and our Religion. And you have to stop yours... If we can, and if you can 
(i.e. it's not as easy as we wish it were)


----------



## feuerbach

annettehola said:
			
		

> You know what I think? I think humour is divine. For this reason both gods and prophets should be included in its sacred atmosphere.
> End of story.
> Finito.
> Ciao!
> Annette


 
Gods laugh and cry. They have a good sense of humour but also a very tender heart. 

I come from a subcontinent that developed Liberation Theology. Our theologians radically reinterpreted Scripture with "a bias toward the poor." I believe that this "preferential option for the poor" is a God-sanctioned and excellent bias. For instance, the Hebrew Scripture tells the Israelites to help the aliens, widows, orphans, and the poor. 

So Annette, how is your society treating minorities, especially aliens who are racially, ethnically and culturally different from your mainline population? I ask this because I don't know the answer. I already made a mistake by taking sides with the Danish newspaper and the freedom of speech cause in Denmark. The article in "The Nation" put things into perspective, at least for me. Maybe with your help I'll know if the gods are shedding tears of laughter or tears of sadness.


----------



## cuchuflete

The topic of this thread is *not* the way Danes or any other people treat minorities, with or without religious guidance.
Please attempt to comment on the thread topic.  If it elicits other ideas you wish to discuss, you are welcome to open a new thread. You are welcome to discuss such disparate matters as the prejudice and slant of the Danish newspaper, the prejudice and slant of "The Nation", and whether freedom of speech should apply to publications you agree with and perhaps somewhat less so to those whose leanings you dislike.


----------



## LV4-26

Is humour divine? How about the relationship between Gods and humour? I must say I'm not convinced by Annette's statement but I also admit I've often played with that idea. Hence, I do think it's worth wondering about it.

Humour is something which, I think, exclusively belongs to man. Henri Bergson said something like that once : "laughter is a purely intellectual response that serves the social purpose of assuaging discomfort over the unaccustomed and unexpected" (I'm using the words of a reviewer of Bergson's book _Laughter).
_A French saying goesthat humour is the_ politeness of despair.

_Therefore I think neither animals nor divinities need humour. We, as humans, do. Because we know both too much and too little.

Another related matter.
The drawings in the Danish paper are not intended to influence anybody because it's never been the role of humour to convince anyone who's not already sharing your opinions. Any joke, in a way, is a private joke. It fails to make any point and is not intended for that. The best it can do, in that field, is reinforce a point for those who are already convinced. The worst it can do is offend some of those who are not. Nothing serious would have happened if we were not living in such a small world of wide instant communication.

Gods are concerned with pedagogy and persuasion (Jesus was, at least). When we, humans, want to convince anybody we use those same tools. We know that being sarcastic makes those who're already on our side laugh. And only them. Same with just saying to someone that (s)he's a racist or anything*. You need to say why it is so and why you think it is wrong to be one. Humour is incapable of that. It needs to be short, quick, effective which is inconsistent with reasoned demonstration. 

I don't think Allah or Muhammed , or any God or prophet for that matter, would laugh at the cartoons and find them funny.

But I don't think they'd be offended either.

Both (laughing and being offended) imply some sort of weakness which They lack, but which is _our_ lot, all of us humans. I think They're well beyond that and that it's a trifle for Them. (I'm just speaking of the pictures not of their subsequent consequences).

*I'm not alluding in any way to the debate between Cuchu and Willy : saying "you're a racist" is one thing and saying "you're* being *a racist" is totally different - grammar!   same difference in Spanish between _ser_ and_ estar _- and I wouldn't mind being told so if my words could possibly have suggested that, provided one would let me explain myself.


----------



## gorbatzjov

I'm not sure if this is appropriate of not. But for those who WANT to see the cartoons or feel the need to see it before making an opinion, they are halfway this article: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

According to an article in Toronto's The Globe and Mail yesterday, by now the original cartoons have a new and distorted life of their own, having grown in the telling.  

One of the stories making the rounds among the dispossessed Palestinians in Lebanon is that one of the cartoons shows Mohamed having sex with another man.  (Nobody interviewed had ever seen the original cartoons.)

An editorial cartoon showed a cartoonist on horseback leading the four bemused Horsemen of the Apocalypse at a charge; one of them is musing that this isn't quite how he expected things to go.

(I'm sorry I can't quote directly here - my husband has gone back to bed and is now snoring gently over that particular section of the newspaper.  Ah, the joys of Saturdays...)


----------



## cuchuflete

Reminder to all who may wish to participate in this thread:
*Re: What do you think of making fun of gods and prophets?


*

If you wish to discuss other topics, related or just maybe related or totally unrelated, open a new thread.


----------



## WillyLandron

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Reminder to all who may wish to participate in this thread:
> *Re: What do you think of making fun of gods and prophets?
> *



If it causes people to kill other people we should probably think twice about doing it even if we feel we have a right to do so.


----------



## feuerbach

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> The drawings in the Danish paper are not intended to influence anybody because it's never been the role of humour to convince anyone who's not already sharing your opinions. Any joke, in a way, is a private joke. It fails to make any point and is not intended for that. The best it can do, in that field, is reinforce a point for those who are already convinced. The worst it can do is offend some of those who are not. Nothing serious would have happened if we were not living in such a small world of wide instant communication.


 
I think you are confusing telling jokes with political satire. I think someone else has addressed this distinction. Satire is much more powerful than serious (and boring) political commentary. If you throw in some cartoons, or if you just use cartoons, your message will be delivered with a greater punch. The cartoons published by the Danish newspaper had a clear political agenda and message to Muslims: We don't care about your religion, and if you have a problem with this, just get the h*ll outta here!


----------



## cuchuflete

Please read post #241.

Here is the thread topic, from post #1:



> What do you think? Are we entitled to make fun of our or anybody elses' gods, saints, prophets and sacred figures?


----------



## opsidol

La gente que argumenta a favor de la libertad de la prensa son un poco hipocrítica. Siempre han sido limites de lo que se puede publicar y lo que no se puede publicar. Por ejemplo si alguien publicara una foto con mucha violencia o una foto vulgar, la censurarían también. Y si no la censuraran, enfadaría a la gente.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

ampurdan said:
			
		

> A Danish newspaper's decision to print twelve cartoons featuring Muslim prophet Mohammed (as a terrorist) has made the Muslim comunity all over the World fly into rage. Some French and Norwegian papers have supported the Danish one and have decided to print the same cartoons, arguing that anybody has right to make fun of God. They say that this is what freedom of speech is about... In Muslim countries people is seconding the calls to boycott Danish products and some fundamentalist terrorists now say that Danes, French people and Norwegians are targets... Denmark PM appeared on Al Jazeera to apologize yesterday evening. UNO's Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has said that freedom of speech does not shelter the gibe of religious believes, but also that it should not provoke violent answers...
> 
> What do you think? Are we entitled to make fun of our or anybody elses' gods, saints, prophets and sacred figures?




Here's the first post, repeated for our reading pleasure.

I admit to being confused here.  Perhaps it's because I'm relatively new to the forum, and if I'm mistaken, I apologise.  I did, however, think that the topic was as much about the leading paragraph as the question at the end of it.


----------



## LV4-26

feuerbach said:
			
		

> The cartoons published by the Danish newspaper had a clear political agenda and message to Muslims: We don't care about your religion, and if you have a problem with this, just get the h*ll outta here!


The kind of power I was talking about was the power of persuasion. If you are right about the content of the message, then it is clear that it was not designed to persuade anybody. Which is what I said in the first lines you quoted.

I think it's all right to make fun of anything you like, sacred or not. But it must be anything and *everything*. Having only one target is no longer making fun, it's on its way to scapegoating. I need the fun-makers to be able to make fun of *themselves* before everything else. Once they've done so, I can start being interested or amused.


----------



## angel_heart

Well, I think that since all religions urge people to show respect towards each other, it's quite normal that I disagree with the fact of making fun of Gods and prophets.

In the bible we find: "Leviticus 19:32 (Whole Chapter) 
" 'Rise in the presence of the aged, show *respect* for the elderly and revere your God. I am the LORD. "
"1 Peter 2:17 (Whole Chapter) 
Show proper *respect* to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king."
"Titus 2:2 (Whole Chapter) 
Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of *respect*, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance."

In the coran we find: 
"Allah and His Angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! send ye blessings on him, and salute him with all respect."
"That which We have revealed to thee of the Book is the Truth, - confirming what was (revealed) before it - for Allah is assuredly, with respect to His servants, well acquainted and Fully-Observant."
"No prophet could (ever) be false to his trust. If any person is so false, he shall, on the Day of Judgment, restore what he misappropriated; then shall every soul receive its due, whatever it earned, and none shall be dealt with unjustly. "


----------



## Gargoyle

she has let God and his honourable messengers in peace. She has only said that she thinks that humour is divine. About whatever...gods or whatever.
if you don ´t agree with her , ok, but respect her. She is not looking for problems,It is only an opinion, her opinion. 
we respect your opinion as well Borhane


----------



## borhane

Gargoyle said:
			
		

> she has let God and his honourable messengers in peace. She has only said that she thinks that humour is divine. About whatever...gods or whatever.
> if you don ´t agree with her , ok, but respect her. She is not looking for problems,It is only an opinion, her opinion.
> we respect your opinion as well Borhane


Thanks Gargoyle
I respect you and I respect her , of course . but may by that I haven't  inderstood " end of story" well. I first thought it like the Final Saying .
and I really want to inderstand it , so please make it out , I want to know if I was wrong or not !!
Thanks in advance


----------



## Valoverseas

I think you have to live in Europe to understand the context.

The more extremist elements of islam are hoping to impose their way of thinking on Europeans rather than encouraging muslims (and their children) to integrate and assimilate in the countries that they have immigrated to.
(I'm not denying that there are problems with integration - mostly due to very weak economies and very wrong-headed social policies put in place by Socialist governments.)  

The cartoons were published several weeks ago and even published in an Egyptian paper since and there were no riots.   The extremist muslim elements took the time to coordinate amongst themselves the recent outbursts of violence.  It's a deliberate ploy to try to further impose their ideas as I mentioned above.

No one doubts here that the violence is caused by manipulation more than any real outrage about the cartoons.  (Look for them on the net, you can find them...nothing special and nothing incredibly offensive, either.)   This, however, is often totally denied by even moderate muslim voices because they can't bring themselves to criticize islamists...

The real problem is that so much of Europe is Leftist (Socialist/Communist) and this Left will very rarely tell the extremists to back down because they see themselves as 'protectors' of all victims.  So, the muslim spokespeople claim they are being victimized, the Left calls for tolerance and cedes to the muslims...and the Right gets branded as racist if they dare tell the extremists to stop breaking the law.  

As someone who lives in a country concerned by this, it is indeed very worrying...


Valoverseas


----------



## cuchuflete

borhane said:
			
		

> Thanks Gargoyle
> I respect you and I respect her , of course . but may by that I haven't inderstood " end of story" well. I first thought it like the Final Saying .
> and I really want to inderstand it , so please make it out , I want to know if I was wrong or not !!
> Thanks in advance



Hi Borhane,

We are dealing in a language not native to all participants in this conversation, so please allow me to offer my own interpretation.  You and Annettehola should correct me if I don't get it right.

Let's begin with the name of this thread:

*What do you think of making fun of gods and prophets?*

Annette answered simply, in a very straightforward way:


You know what I think? I think humour is divine. For this reason both gods and prophets should be included in its sacred atmosphere. 
 End of story.
 Finito.
 Ciao!

I take that to mean the following:  I think there should be no
prohibition against including gods and prophets in humor. Period. Full stop.  I have nothing more to say.

Borhane answered with this:

what are you trying to do honey !!! if you are looking for problems , I should inform you that this isn't the right place for that , I believe in Jesus Moise and Mohamet and I'll never let anybody makes fun about them , it's shameful , you know ! let God and his honourable messengers in peace !!


For a native English speaker, "...if you are looking for problems..." might be perceived as a threat.  I am not saying that it was intended to be a threat, but the phrase certainly could easily be read as one, especially when it is followed by,
"I'll never let anybody...".   

From whatever objective distance I have from this interchange, it appears that we have a total disagreement between two people in a conversation.  One believes that it is
acceptable to make fun of religious figures, and another is adamently opposed to making fun of them.   The difference is that Borhane *seems* to be saying that he would take action against the person with whom he disagrees.

I stress, this is how I read it as an English speaker.  It may not fully or accurately reflect what the two people intended.  They are invited to say so and to offer any further thoughts they may have on the topic.







http://forum.wordreference.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=657085


----------



## badgrammar

Hmmm, Valoerseas, I respect your right to your opinion, but your post is a little right-wing kaleidoscope scary...

"The more extremist elements of islam are hoping to impose their way of thinking on Europeans rather than encouraging muslims (and their children) to integrate and assimilate in the countries that they have immigrated to."  
If you lived in France, I'd ask you if you're fond of Jean Marie Lepen...  or atleast of Sarkozy...

Indeed, some of Europe is still leftist, and here's to hoping it stays that way...  

Weird post.



			
				Valoverseas said:
			
		

> I think you have to live in Europe to understand the context.
> 
> The more extremist elements of islam are hoping to impose their way of thinking on Europeans rather than encouraging muslims (and their children) to integrate and assimilate in the countries that they have immigrated to.
> (I'm not denying that there are problems with integration - mostly due to very weak economies and very wrong-headed social policies put in place by Socialist governments.)
> 
> The cartoons were published several weeks ago and even published in an Egyptian paper since and there were no riots.   The extremist muslim elements took the time to coordinate amongst themselves the recent outbursts of violence.  It's a deliberate ploy to try to further impose their ideas as I mentioned above.
> 
> No one doubts here that the violence is caused by manipulation more than any real outrage about the cartoons.  (Look for them on the net, you can find them...nothing special and nothing incredibly offensive, either.)   This, however, is often totally denied by even moderate muslim voices because they can't bring themselves to criticize islamists...
> 
> The real problem is that so much of Europe is Leftist (Socialist/Communist) and this Left will very rarely tell the extremists to back down because they see themselves as 'protectors' of all victims.  So, the muslim spokespeople claim they are being victimized, the Left calls for tolerance and cedes to the muslims...and the Right gets branded as racist if they dare tell the extremists to stop breaking the law.
> 
> As someone who lives in a country concerned by this, it is indeed very worrying...
> 
> 
> Valoverseas


----------



## cuchuflete

opsidol said:
			
		

> La gente que argumenta a favor de la libertad de la prensa son un poco hipocrítica. Siempre han sido limites de lo que se puede publicar y lo que no se puede publicar. Por ejemplo si alguien publicara una foto con mucha violencia o una foto vulgar, la censurarían también. Y si no la censuraran, enfadaría a la gente.



Oh Please!  

Have you been sheltered all your life from the extreme violence and vulgarity to be found in the tabloid press in countries throughout the world? 

 It is not censored, including lots of photos, text, and cartoons that many of us would find offensive and disgusting.  Some people get angry about such publications, and try to pass censorship laws. 

 This is nothing new.   

You have not given a shread of fact to support your claim of
hypocrisy by those who argue in favor of freedom of the press.  You have hurled out a specious accusation and nothing more.  If you have facts to support such an outlandish claim, please present them.


----------



## Edwin

ampurdan said:
			
		

> What do you think? Are we entitled to make fun of our or anybody elses' gods, saints, prophets and sacred figures?



By "entitled" I assume you mean should it be legal. Then certainly. It is a tradition in modern western society and let's keep it! I am totally opposed to laws preventing such activity. 

Of course, people may and do protest in many legal ways when someone insults THEIR sacred cow. For example, people commonly boycott movies they don't like, boycott companies that sponsor TV programs they disapprove of, write many "letters to the editor", and sometimes even march in the streets. And that's okay as long as no one is killed and no one's property is destroyed.  

I agree with Leon Wieseltier who defending free speech in the Rushdie case in 1989 said:


> “It was blasphemy that made us free. Two cheers today for blasphemy.”



John Leo's recent column on this subject is, shall I say, interesting:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/johnleo/2006/02/12/186117.html


----------



## bbear999

Religion has but one purpose and that is to control the masses. Nobody knows the truth, therefore any explanation offered by a human is inherently wrong.
Is it wrong to make fun of fiction? Hardly.
The thing that strikes me as funny is that there are so many people who believe so strongly about something that nobody in this world can prove or disprove. 
I think the rulers of the Muslim world are very happy with their tool. It is perfect. It takes about 16 hours to recite the Kuran. To be a good muslim, you are supposed to recite the Kuran every day. Doesn't leave a lot of time for thinking does it?
The inability of the masses of Muslims to accept any criticism of God or their beloved prophet merely illustrates the fact that they don't really believe. Those that have true belief in their hearts will not be insulted by something they know is not true.


----------



## cubaMania

I respect the right of the obscure Danish newspaper to publish satirical cartoons.  Up with free speech, hooray!  Even when it's ugly and stupid!

I respect the right of Muslims to be offended, and to express (PEACEFULLY) their objections.

But now we have the best answer to the whole controversy.  You can find at www.boomka.org the start of a new contest for the most offensive anti-semitic cartoons to be submitted by Jews.  The winners will be exhibited in Tel Aviv, Israel.  The contest just started, so there is not much there yet, but what a brilliant and instructive idea to illustrate the principle of free speech.




> ...Sandy (29), graphic artist and publisher of Dimona Comix Publishing, from Tel-Aviv, Israel, has followed the unfolding of the "Muhammad cartoon-gate" events in amazement, until finally he came up with the right answer to all this insanity - and so he announced today the launch of a new anti-Semitic cartoons contest - this time drawn by Jews themselves!
> "We'll show the world we can do the best, sharpest, most offensive Jew hating cartoons ever published!" said Sandy "No Iranian will beat us on our home turf!"...


----------



## Edwin

cubaMania said:
			
		

> But now we have the best answer to the whole controversy.  You can find at www.boomka.org the start of a new contest for the most offensive anti-semitic cartoons to be submitted by Jews.  The winners will be exhibited in Tel Aviv, Israel.  The contest just started, so there is not much there yet, but what a brilliant and instructive idea to illustrate the principle of free speech.



"What a brilliant and instructive idea..!" 

Yes, I agree 100%! And, wouldn't it be nice if humanity could replace war and other types of violence by "cartoon wars"--by this I mean a "war" limited to the publication of cartoons.  Would the US remain a superpower? Certainly we have been practicing the art of political cartooning since the inception of our country. Of course, I suppose the history goes way back all over the world. 

Outside of basic intelligence, there is nothing more important to a good political cartoonist than ill will. --Jules Feiffer


----------



## asm

a) I think you do not have the right to offend others protected by the freedom of speech. Making fun of gods and prophets is right if it's no offensive (there are plenty of jokes related to God, and they are really good). Freedom of speech needs responsibility, and has limits.
(following are some thoughts I have related to the topic)

b) In western society we think Muslims over reacted to this issue (I am included), but we are not considering other factors. As I dont thinkTroy was destroyed only because a woman was kidnapped, Í think this is a case where many other issues detonated at the same time. The cartoons triggered rage that was already there.

  c) Freedom of speech is not a divine right, but the result of social and cultural processes; although desirable for all other societies, this issue has proven that we are not ready for freedom of speech in other parts of the planet. This is a sad but real. We are not ready/mature for freedom of speech for all. I am not saying we are and they don’t, what I am saying is that I am (sadly) surprised that we live in different realms with different values. While we make fun of our thinks, even gods, Muslims are serious about their prophet and we shouldn’t mess with their beliefs.

  d) it is extremely easy to get people involved with these behaviors if religion is used as a pretext for hatred. It’s clear that religious manipulation played an important role during the events






			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> A Danish newspaper's decision to print twelve cartoons featuring Muslim prophet Mohammed (as a terrorist) has made the Muslim comunity all over the World fly into rage. Some French and Norwegian papers have supported the Danish one and have decided to print the same cartoons, arguing that anybody has right to make fun of God. They say that this is what freedom of speech is about... In Muslim countries people is seconding the calls to boycott Danish products and some fundamentalist terrorists now say that Danes, French people and Norwegians are targets... Denmark PM appeared on Al Jazeera to apologize yesterday evening. UNO's Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has said that freedom of speech does not shelter the gibe of religious believes, but also that it should not provoke violent answers...
> 
> What do you think? Are we entitled to make fun of our or anybody elses' gods, saints, prophets and sacred figures?


----------



## cuchuflete

I sincerely hope that ASM will not take offense at this, but I find his statement ridiculous, utopian, and just thoroughly naive.  From the standpoint of one who believes in freedom of thought, and its logical corollary, freedom of expression, I also find this statement mildly offensive:



			
				ASM said:
			
		

> I think you do not have the right to offend others protected by the freedom of speech.



I think George W. Bush and his cronies are a bunch of pernicious, power-hungry, immoral people.  That statement is sure to offend his many supporters.  

I think that any and all so-called suicide bombers who kill children are hatred-filled murdering scum.  May they be highly offended by my remark!

Free speech will always offend somebody.  Show me the censor you would empower to limit our thoughts and statements, and you will have shown me an instrument of tyranny.  

That's the nasty thing about freedom of speech.  It allows for and invites both vigorous disagreements, and even offenses.
The alternative is far more ugly and oppressive.


----------



## feuerbach

asm said:
			
		

> c) Freedom of speech is not a divine right, but the result of social and cultural processes; although desirable for all other societies, this issue has proven that we are not ready for freedom of speech in other parts of the planet. This is a sad but real. We are not ready/mature for freedom of speech for all. I am not saying we are and they don’t, what I am saying is that I am (sadly) surprised that we live in different realms with different values. While we make fun of our thinks, even gods, Muslims are serious about their prophet and we shouldn’t mess with their beliefs.


 
Although it's true that radical Muslims cling to pre-Enlightenment dogmatism, we shouldn't forget that in the West, and especially in the United States, there are millions of people who also embrace pre-Enlightment values. Their mindset isn't progressive or rational, and they are not open to a multiplicity of perspectives and arguments. Fundamentalist Christians, traditionalist Catholics and ultra-Orthodox Jews belong to this club. They equate criticism (not just mockery) of their beliefs with hate speech and religious bigotry. And most importantly, they don't just conduct public protests but they also try to shut down offensive speech. However, it should be pointed out --and this is the main distinction with radical Islamists-- they don't call for violence in response to heresy.*** 

In other words, "en todas partes se cuecen habas." (Horse beans are cooked in every home.)

***One notable exception is Pat Robertson whose religious beliefs inform his political agenda. For instance, he publicly asked US special forces to kill Venezuelan's President Hugo Chavez and more recently he stated that minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.


----------



## annettehola

Hey-ho!

I haven't been reading this thread for some days, but now I just did.

Cuchu is absolutely right, of course. Cuchu writes:"I take that to mean the following: I think there should be no
prohibition against including gods and prophets in humor. Period. Full stop. I have nothing more to say."

That was - and that is - exactly what I mean. 

Finito.

Ciau!

Annette


----------



## asm

I agree, but I don't equate humor with offense.





			
				annettehola said:
			
		

> Hey-ho!
> 
> I haven't been reading this thread for some days, but now I just did.
> 
> Cuchu is absolutely right, of course. Cuchu writes:"I take that to mean the following: I think there should be no
> prohibition against including gods and prophets in humor. Period. Full stop. I have nothing more to say."
> 
> That was - and that is - exactly what I mean.
> 
> Finito.
> 
> Ciau!
> 
> Annette


----------



## feuerbach

Gargoyle said:
			
		

> she has let God and his honourable messengers in peace. She has only said that she thinks that humour is divine. About whatever...gods or whatever.
> if you don ´t agree with her , ok, but respect her. She is not looking for problems,It is only an opinion, her opinion.
> we respect your opinion as well Borhane


 
If humour is divine, that means that gods have a sense of humour, right? Well please check argument # 307 in the following list of proofs of God’s existence.

307. ARGUMENT FROM MONTY PYTHON
(1) Graham Chapman appeared in a film that made fun of Jesus.
(2) Graham Chapman died of a horrible, incurable disease.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
(3a) And has no sense of humor

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm


----------



## cuchuflete

It has been said many times here that mockery of Christian and Jewish religion is easily found in "Western" publications.

That appears to violate the Quran's instructions.

Have there been any demonstrations against such publications in your memory in Syria, Pakistan, Lebanon, etc.?

Selective piety? Or political manipulation?


----------



## asm

Respondo a tu mensaje en espanol porque me cuesta mucho (tiempo y esfuerzo).


1.- La libertad de expresion es uno de los logros mas importantes de la humanidad, sin embargo no todos los humanos gozamos de este privilegio. Seria muy bueno que asi fuera. Creer que todo el mundo puede y debe respetarlo es mas ingenuo que todo lo que he escrito.

2.- Muchas cosas de la cultura americana me han fascinado, la libertad entre ellas. Sin embargo tengo un problema con la gente que piensa que dicho principio es el numero uno, la verdad absoluta, etc. Me molesta, y en verdad tengo reservas para quien la defiende mas que a su vida. 

3.- Limites a la libertad de expresion siempre han existido, pero muchas veces no las vemos como tal. Las reglas que tanto se han empenado en guardar ustedes como moderadores en WR es un ejemplo. Quien no cumple con esas limitaciones tiene el peligro de que le borren los post, de que lo amonesten y haste de que lo eliminen del foro.

4.- La libertad de expresion no siempre agrede al otro, el respeto es un valor que puede (y debe, si quiero seguir siendo ingenuo) darse en una confrontacion.

5.- A mi juicio quienes usan la libertad de expresion solo para mofarse de los demas lo hacen denigrando dicha libertad. La devaluan.

6.- Reconozco mi poco conocimiento de la cultura musulmana, pero lo que presiento es que viven bajo un paradigma totalmente diferente al nuestro; ellos no valoran las libertades como nosotros (no quiero decir con ello que sea bueno/malo) y son capaces de hacer muchas cosas con tal de "respetar" a su profeta.


8.- El defender hasta la muerte el derecho a la libertad de expresion puede ser visto tan radical y tan fanatico como el hacer lo mismo por motivos religiosos. 
Cuando la libertad de expresion se convierte en la religion (muchos la practican, aunque muchos lo niegan), el radicalismo es tan fanatico como los mismos musulmanes que salieron a la calle a protestar.

9.- Acerca de lo que dices en tu mensaje: no me ofendo por lo que dices, solo me incomoda que digas que mi comentario es ridiculo; en cuanto ofensivo, pues ya lo ves, tengo problemas con quienes piensan que la primera enmienda constitucional es ley divina. Tu mismo mencionas acerca de las desventajas de la libertad de expresion, yo las apoyo, pero lejos de pensar que “la alternativa” es peor, creo que hay que controlarla con respeto. SIEMPRE HAY CENSURA, SIEMPRE!

10 Pienso que relacionarse con varias culturas es como visitar un lugar con una fauna diversa. Uno se siente mas comodo con unos animales que con otros. En lo personal puedo jugar con un perro sin problemas, pero no me gustan los gatos, les pongo una barrera (psicologica y fisica) para que no me agredan, aunque quizas nunca lo hagan. Yo no trataria igual a un caballo que a un becerro y no me acerco con la misma confianza a un venado que a un zorrillo. Todos los animales me merecen el mismo respeto, pero yo no puedo comportarme con ellos de la misma forma, cada uno de ellos responde de diferente modo y cuando se ven afectados agreden (o huyen) bajo diferentes patrones. ALgunos muy violentamente. Mientras que no tengo temor de confrontar a un cristiano que no profesa mis propias creencias, nunca lo hare con un musulman, por respeto y porque no se como reaccionara. Prefiero ser prudente que martir de la “santa y divina” libertad de expresion.






			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I sincerely hope that ASM will not take offense at this, but I find his statement ridiculous, utopian, and just thoroughly naive. From the standpoint of one who believes in freedom of thought, and its logical corollary, freedom of expression, I also find this statement mildly offensive:
> 
> 
> 
> I think George W. Bush and his cronies are a bunch of pernicious, power-hungry, immoral people. That statement is sure to offend his many supporters.
> 
> I think that any and all so-called suicide bombers who kill children are hatred-filled murdering scum. May they be highly offended by my remark!
> 
> Free speech will always offend somebody. Show me the censor you would empower to limit our thoughts and statements, and you will have shown me an instrument of tyranny.
> 
> That's the nasty thing about freedom of speech. It allows for and invites both vigorous disagreements, and even offenses.
> The alternative is far more ugly and oppressive.


----------



## Fernando

ASM, the problem is the "crime" has beeen done in Danemark, not in any Muslim country.

You say you hav no fear to face a Christian, but you are afraid to face a Muslim. You are entitled to do so and maybe in Kentucky or in Mexico is a good option, but in Spain we have 0.8 million Muslims (or coming from Muslim countries) and we have a border with Marocco. We can not say something as "Bah, let us not speak with that tiny part of population."


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Free speech will always offend somebody.  Show me the censor you would empower to limit our thoughts and statements, and you will have shown me an instrument of tyranny.
> 
> That's the nasty thing about freedom of speech.  It allows for and invites both vigorous disagreements, and even offenses.
> The alternative is far more ugly and oppressive.



Does freedom of speech cover purposeful and knowing lying?
Does it cover Holocaust denial?
Have I the right to stand up in the main street of any city and say that the person who owns the shop nearest me is a thief?

Not everyone can afford to take recourse to the law-courts to protect their good name - how can they vindicate themselves against deliberate lies?


----------



## Fernando

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Does freedom of speech cover purposeful and knowing lying?


No, but I do not feel depicting Muhammad is "purposeful and knowing lying".



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> Does it cover Holocaust denial?


No, because the general agreement is that to deny such an obvious fact is nothing but to show a hatred show.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> Have I the right to stand up in the main street of any city and say that the person who owns the shop nearest me is a thief?


No, you have not. Or the least the shop owner can sue you because you are claiming he has done a crime.


----------



## timpeac

feuerbach said:
			
		

> If humour is divine, that means that gods have a sense of humour, right? Well please check argument # 307 in the following list of proofs of God’s existence.
> 
> 307. ARGUMENT FROM MONTY PYTHON
> (1) Graham Chapman appeared in a film that made fun of Jesus.
> (2) Graham Chapman died of a horrible, incurable disease.
> (3) Therefore, God exists.
> (3a) And has no sense of humor
> 
> http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm


 
My parents are devoutly Christian and I know they love this film - as does the vicar of their church. So laughing at religion isn't necessarily avoided by people who believe in that religion.

I wonder if it has something to do with security. They simply don't feel threatened by it, and so are able to disconnect and appreciate the humour.


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:
			
		

> No, but I do not feel depicting Muhammad is "purposeful and knowing lying".



I didn't mention Muhammad, I was talking about freedom of speech in general.



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> No, you have not. Or the least the shop owner can sue you because you are claiming he has done a crime.


I have already made the point that not everyone can afford to sue. It can be horrendously expensive to take a case like this, and especially so when the person/body you wish to sue is extremely wealthy - such as a newspaper or TV company.


----------



## Fernando

Yes, but if a bank steals your money you will have the same problem.

I feel we are out of the main point. Muslims have the means (in Danemark or elsewhere) to protect themselves and the cartoons were attacking a concept, not a particular individual.


----------



## cubaMania

maxiogee you are making a false comparison when you bring in a case of accusing an individual person of being a thief, or of any other crime.  That has to do with the laws of libel and slander.  That has nothing to do with the issue of free speech.


----------



## maxiogee

On the subject of the thread...

I think that any God, or Prophet, who is offended by any of the actions of humans who do not believe in them, lacks the _sine qua non_ of Godhood/Prophethood - an understanding of human nature.
Further anyone who's personal faith in their own divine being is shaken or made less certain by the words or actions of other people chould examine their own faith, and not the disbelief of others.
I have a relationship with my ultimate Creator which does not depend on priests and religions, and cannot be shaken by what anyone else does or says. If it falters (and it does, regularly) it is my problem.

However, we should bear in mind that there are nations in the Middle East in which people usually over-react to anything untoward - be it the hugely emotional physical and verbal displays of grief at natural disasters, or the mass rallies which seem to occur at the drop of a Western hat in some offensive manner.

Salman Rushdie could have told the cartoonist and the publishers what to expect. *We know that they react like this! Why are we in the West expressing surprise and outrage?* You don't have to be an Islamic scholar to be able to say that cartoons demeaning to Islam would bring strong reactions!


----------



## maxiogee

cubaMania said:
			
		

> maxiogee you are making a false comparison when you bring in a case of accusing an individual person of being a thief, or of any other crime.  That has to do with the laws of libel and slander.  That has nothing to do with the issue of free speech.



I'm not, you know.

If I cannot prove that XY business cheated me out of my money, and/or cannot afford to go to court against them - am I allowed to stand outside their premises shouting to anyone who passes by that they 'stole' from me?

If they didn't steal from me, but they cannot prove it (for whatever reason) can they do anything to stop me from defaming them - _apart from resorting to libel laws_?


----------



## Outsider

Valoverseas said:
			
		

> I think you have to live in Europe to understand the context.


There's a joke waiting to be made, there...


----------



## feuerbach

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Does freedom of speech cover purposeful and knowing lying?
> Does it cover Holocaust denial?


 
You hit it on the nail! 

_"Europe has its sacred cows, even if they're not religious sacred cows,_" said Dyab Abou Jahjah, the founder of the Arab European League. And this is a guy who claims rights for immigrants but without violence.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/08/news/europe.php

We should also listen to what Pakistani liberals have to say on this topic. 

_Pakistani liberals argue that Muslims know very well that the West - despite its emphasis on personal freedoms - also has its sacred cows, the Holocaust being a prime example. _
_What the Muslims have yet to learn, they say, is how to persuade the prevailing Western mindset to pay similar respect to what they hold so dear. _

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4688624.stm

I agree with two things this article says. (1) We all have sacred cows, religious or non-religious. 

For instance, some of us in the West don't even dare to review the historicity of the Holocaust. "It happened. Don't even go there." When the president of Iran says that the Holocaust didn't happen, we react emotionally, we cringe. Let's not forget that saying the Holocaust didn't happen is a crime in Germany, Austria, France and several other European countries. Aren't these countries infringing upon the right of individuals to speak freely? Why can't they say that? Because it's a taboo topic. 




> *ta·boo also ta·bu (tə-bū', tă-) http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/pron.gif
> n., pl. -boos also -bus.
> 
> A ban or an inhibition resulting from social custom or emotional aversion.
> 
> A prohibition, especially in Polynesia and other South Pacific islands, excluding something from use, approach, or mention because of its sacred and inviolable nature.
> An object, a word, or an act protected by such a prohibition.
> 
> adj.
> Excluded or forbidden from use, approach, or mention: a taboo subject.
> *


*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2004, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. *

(2) Muslims need to persuade us to pay similar respect to what they hold so dear. I call them taboos. There are things we approach from the negative ("just don't go there") and not from the positive ("bring it up because I won't get upset"). There are things excluded from use, approach, or mention. This applies to all cultures. The problem is that some of us in the West are in denial and believe that we are taboo-free.


----------



## timpeac

I don't understand this last post at all. What are you saying? Can you specify? If it is that people in Europe don't dare question if the Holocaust happened or not then that's rubbish. They don't question it in the same way we don't question too often which way gravity acts. I've never seen anyone cringe from that question, just laugh.


----------



## Fernando

Two nuances:

1) Maybe is a good idea to remove the anti-revisionist laws.

2) Anyhow, I have to find ONE revisionist who is not claiming for the destruction of Jews, Israel or both. The president of Iran is a good example.

The same way I have not seen a guy with a white suit and a cross with the letters "KKK" who is not claiming for apartheid or simply, black hunt.

If I was a Jew and I saw a swastika or a black and I saw a KKK I would be frightened to death. It is not (only) a matter of offence is a matter of threat.

Do you think Muslims in Egypt or Palestine are scared? No, they are not saying "we are frightened", they are saying "we are offended".


----------



## maxiogee

Why are they offended?
Their prophet is dead.
*They* know that he was a prophet of their God.
What does it matter what other people think?
I'm seriously asking that question. 

How does my opinion (if I had one) of Mohammad affect *any* other person?


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Maxi,

One by one...





			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> Does freedom of speech cover purposeful and knowing lying? Have you ever read anything spoken or written by a politician?  Odds are good there are lies, sins of omission designed to obfuscate and distort....
> Does it cover Holocaust denial? I don't agree with the 'gag orders' some countries have on this topic.  I'd much rather make mincemeat of the perpetrators with hard facts.
> Have I the right to stand up in the main street of any city and say that the person who owns the shop nearest me is a thief?
> Yes, you do.  If you are telling the truth, and can prove it, you will be fine.  If you are lying you will likely suffer consequences.
> 
> Not everyone can afford to take recourse to the law-courts to protect their good name - how can they vindicate themselves against deliberate lies?  That's a very good question, but a  terribly weak argument in favor of restricting free speech, which I don't believe is your intent.  A U.S. Senator, one Joe McCarthy, used the Congress to lie and besmirch the reputations of many fine people.  It took a lot of bravery and effort and time and expense to undo some of that damage.  Some could never be undone.  How interesting that he did it in a venue not subject to libel laws!


----------



## timpeac

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Why are they offended?
> Their prophet is dead.
> *They* know that he was a prophet of their God.
> What does it matter what other people think?
> I'm seriously asking that question.
> 
> How does my opinion (if I had one) of Mohammad affect *any* other person?


 
Yes - that's the point I was making about my parent's laughing at the film "life of Brian". Why would it worry them it is making fun of Jesus? It just means they can appreciate the jokes more.


----------



## Fernando

Example: "Your late mother was a b*tch". Your mother is dead, you know she was a saint... but I think you would annoy.

Well, I understand they could be offended. Not by these particular cartoons, which I consider quite inoffensive. But I can understand that some people could be annoyed by a comment, specially if the only intention was expressing hate.


----------



## Papalote

Hola, todos, Hi, everyone, again!

It seems to me we are turning in circles, but two different circles. Those of us who defend freedom of speech regardless of topic are doing so for *those countries where it already exists*. Those who defend it with reservations are underlying the fact that if it offends a concept *outside of one´s culture*, *then what must go is freedom of speech*.

My humble opinion is that those two circles will never touch. We in the first circle are turning round and round trying to explain a concept that is totally alien to extremists. Those in the second circle are trying to make compatible the incompatible. 

Why is it so hard for them to accept that people have the right to freedom of speech where it exists: the USA and Europe? Mmm, I´d better qualify that. Where it exists without risking life and limb (like when I was growing up in Mexico). And even there people have the right to defend freedom of speech, at their own risk, but they are doing so *in their own country*.

Why is everyone else, mm, almost everyone else (I haven´t read all the posts) trying to convince me that what prevails in all the other countries where theocracies exist should apply to me? The cartoons were published in a non-Muslim country. Period. Freedom of speech exists there. Period. Immigrants know this. Period. Why are they so surprised when it is used?

So, after all this, my answer to the question is, if freedom of speech exists where you live, gods and prophets amongst many other topics will be made fun of. I don´t like it much, but my own means of dealing with it is speaking up, writing to newspapers, radio stations, tv stations, starting a dialogue, ending the ¨friendship¨ if it was fellow student or worker depending on the type of comment made. But being offended does not give me the right to kill. Freedom of speech does give me the right to use it to defend myself.

And, yes, freedom of speech is a right, many people have fought for it in the past.

Respectfully,

Papalote


----------



## Outsider

Papalote said:
			
		

> Why is it so hard for them to accept that people have the right to freedom of speech where it exists: the USA and Europe? Mmm, I´d better qualify that. Where it exists without risking life and limb (like when I was growing up in Mexico). And even there people have the right to defend freedom of speech, at their own risk, but they are doing so in their own country.
> 
> Why is everyone else, mm, almost everyone else (I haven´t read all the posts) trying to convince me that what prevails in all the other countries where theocracies exist should apply to me? The cartoons were published in a non-Muslim country. Period. Freedom of speech exists there. Period. Immigrants know this. Period. Why are they so surprised when it is used?


But are we in the West in a moral position to say "It's my country, you can't mess with it"?


----------



## Papalote

Hi, me again

Outsider, I think every behaviour should be based on respect. I am an immigrant. I chose a country that, although very different to my original ones in many aspects, is essentially compatible to my beliefs and aspirations. So, almost certainly my situation is totally different from someone who comes from a totally incompatible background. I have been guilty of critiicizing a few things around me (mainly politicians  ) and there are other things I am viscerally against, like abortion and rape. But I am lucky I am able to use my freedon of speech and my right to vote to make things happen. (or at least to make others think) (okay, my way).

I do not believe that I have the right to impose my beliefs, my language, my culture, in short, what I left behind, on a society which has grown (for lack of a better word) with other values and other issues. Is the West morally right? Well, I have criticized the fact that Canada is sending a contingent of Captains (I´m not sure if there are other ranks going), as part of a NATO contingent, to teach the new government in Afghanistan how to rule themselves. I believe I have been quite vocal telling my friend´s son, who is the one going, that it is extremely presumptuous of us to think that only our way is the right one. But I wouldn´t kill him to prevent him from doing what he thinks is his duty.

Just because some of our leaders are not moral, that does not prevent a whole nation from excercising their right to freedom. A leader is temporary and hopefull the wrong he does can be undone. Destroying freedom of speech is more lasting.

We are not perfect, but we do have that moral right, I almost said obligation.

I´m afraid I must leave you here, got a train to catch, but will be back, if my work permits, tomorrow.

Take care,
^
Papalote


----------



## feuerbach

Timpeac,

Professor Deborah Lipstadt is an American Jewish academic who crushed David Irving in the British court. And who is David Irving? A British war historian who is today sitting in an Austrian jail, accused of denying the Nazi Holocaust. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4578534.stm

It is a crime in Austria to minimize the atrocities of the Third Reich and David Irving faces up to 10 years imprisonment if found guilty. Guilty of what? Of killing Jews? No. Of denying that the Holocaust happened. Don’t you see a difference? 

It’s plain censorship. This is Professor Lipstadt's opinion too. "Generally, I don't think Holocaust denial should be a crime," she says. "I am a free speech person, I am against censorship."

She illustrates the difference between killing someone and denying that the killing happened. "We don't have laws against other kinds of spoken craziness. If you're a medical quack and you hurt someone, there's a law against that. But if you're a medical quack and you stand on the street corner preaching that you have an elixir that cures cancer and saves lives, no one throws you in jail." 

Well, Mr. Irving might be imprisoned for up to 10 years not because he hurt someone (killing Jews) but because he preached something (the killing of Jews didn’t happen.)

Professor Lipstadt is correct when she argues that both Austria and Germany are not so far past the Third Reich. She therefore recognizes a case for laws in the lands that formed the heart of the Third Reich. I personally think that these laws were created for Germans and Austrians to avoid collective denial and forgetfulness from kicking in. This is their underlying message: “The Holocaust took place and Hitler too, and we allowed both to occur. Let’s not ever forget it.” “Austria and Germany are different, but I would not support those laws being instituted elsewhere," Lipstadt argues. 

So let’s go to your questions.




			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> I don't understand this last post at all. What are you saying? Can you specify? If it is that people in Europe don't dare question if the Holocaust happened or not then that's rubbish. They don't question it in the same way we don't question too often which way gravity acts. I've never seen anyone cringe from that question, just laugh.



(1) People of 9 European countries don’t care question if the Holocaust happened because it's a crime, and they could go to jail if found guilty. 

(2) Ms. Lipstadt doesn’t want Holocaust deniers to go to jail because she doesn’t want them to become martyrs. Hers is a political agenda. I don’t want them to go to jail because, from my detached perspective, they commited no crime. Even bigots have the right to speak their mind. 

(3) Denying that the Holocaust happened is like depicting the image of the Prophet Muhammad: you just don't do it. You can mess with values and get away with it but not with taboos.


----------



## Edwin

feuerbach said:
			
		

> ](3) Denying that the Holocaust happened is like depicting the image of the Prophet Muhammad: you just don't do it. You can mess with values and get away with it but not with taboos.



You can break many taboos and get by with it in some countries. *Provided the taboo is not prohibited by law*.  Thus, in the US people can and some do deny the Holocaust happened and do make fun of Prophet Mohammed with impunity. We can and do make fun of any and all gods, Gods, religions, creeds, cults, sects, .... Some people even make fun of atheists. 

What is a taboo?  It depends on where you are. Here a few taboos in the Kentige Tribe of Papua New Guinea:



> *Taboos:* Here are some of the endless list of examples of taboos practised at Kokop: Inside a house, when a man is seated, a woman is not allowed to walk in front of him because it is rude. When a woman has her period, she is not allow to touch food and live in the same house with the men. When visitors are around, no children is to make noise of any kind. (A book can be written about taboos alone in Kokop, as practised by the Kentiga people, although most of them are beginning to blur). SOURCE



More taboos:

"Muslim taboos"

"Christian taboos"

"American taboos"


----------



## timpeac

Feuerbach - ok well argued

However, I'm not sure it's the same thing though. Countries are free to make laws within their borders for or against whatever they want (more or less). Here we are dealing with people from other countries trying to force another country to follow their norms. There are many many things done in other countries I don't agree with - I don't burn their embassies, but I do boycott their goods. That's my legal right.


----------



## annettehola

Timpeac, open your eyes. The thing about taboos here is a very good point. All cultures are full of them. And I do believe that to be a great part of the reason actually why that thing happened in DK. But of course! "Jyllands Posten" touched upon a taboo. A religious one at that. It's like lightening a cig on a petrol-station. How many taboos do you know of? I could mention these f.ex: 1) Sex 2) Death 3) Religion 4) Swear words as part of language 5) Patriotism 6) Nationalism 7) Football and other sports 8) Money ("How much do you earn?" Some people would choke if you asked them that simple question) and so on and so on and so on and so....
Annette


----------



## LV4-26

Since the middle of this thread, I'd been thinking of putting the case of the Holocaust denial laws and other such laws in France and elsewhere. I didn't because I thought it was off topic. Now I can see many of you have started to speak of it. Wouldn't it be a good idea to launch a new thread on that particular subject?


----------



## Benjy

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Since the middle of this thread, I'd been thinking of putting the case of the Holocaust denial laws and other such laws in France and elsewhere. I didn't because I thought it was off topic. Now I can see many of you have started to speak of it. Wouldn't it be a good idea to launch a new thread on that particular subject?



if you want to focus on that in particular go for it


----------



## cuchuflete

Another thing has happened in this thread. A number of people, with no factual backup, have stated the intentions of the newspaper that published the cartoons.

They have asserted, with great conviction, the motives for the publication. I wonder how many of those self-styled experts have any knowledge of Danish, or have ever read a copy of the paper in question, or are aware of it's readership. One person made reference to the newspaper's editorial stance, some 75 years ago!

It's very nice to hold such supposed expertise, but is it credible?

Some facts might make for interesting reading.


----------



## Edwin

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Another thing has happened in this thread. A number of people, with no factual backup, have stated the intentions of the newspaper that published the cartoons.



That's just one of our many propensities:  attributing motives to others after observing their action.  Heck, much of the time we cannot even accurately describe our own motives for doing things much less that of other people. And when you have something like a newspaper (composed of a variety of people) attributing something written in the newspaper to the newspaper itself is silly. And attributing it to entire population of the country in which the newspaper is published is the height of ridiculousness. Why not attribute it to the entire universe? In fact, the latter is my explanation for the Danish cartoons and everything else.


----------



## maxiogee

annettehola said:
			
		

> How many taboos do you know of? I could mention these f.ex:
> 7) Football and other sports



Taboo - football and sports?

Please explain. It appears to me - someone who is bored rigid by sports of all sorts - that football is the one topic that people all over the world are more than willing to bend one's ear about.

_If only it were taboo!_ 

Would you like to explain what you mean by including it in with Sex, Death and Religion?  I'm curious.


----------



## Outsider

Here's an interesting point of view on Western taboos, although I don't entirely agree with it.


----------



## Quebar

hola

la conclusion aqui es que nadie debe burlarse o hacer comentarios mal intensionados acerca de la fe de una persona o de un pueblo, en el mundo hay personas que defienden la libertad de expresion pero creen que el respeto a esta libertad es el menospreciar o criticar a otros, algo que me ha tocado aprender con mi propia experiencia es que mi libertad de expresion termina en donde comienza la de mi projimo.

no entiendo y lo digo con respeto ¿porque algunas personas se ofenden porque los musulmanes defienden su fe (creo que no la defienden de la mejor manera ), sin embargo estas cosas suceden por la falta de respeto.

algo que todas las personas deberian y no tendrian que aprender es que en el mundo hay gente que va a ofender tu fe y que te va a rechazar incluso haran caricaturas un tanto ridiculas para denigrar tus creencias, por eso Jesus preparo a sus disicipulos porque sabia que estas cosas pasarian.

siendo razonable el respeto es algo escaso, creo que respetar a una cultura,religion,estilo de vida es algo que traeria paz, este tipo de burlas ya causaron muchas muertes por favor ya esta bueno de seguir en el tiempo de las cruzadas hoy en dia con amor y verdad se puede llegar a los corazones de las personas.

bueno esta es una opinion muy personal si aporta para este thread, bienvenidos los comentarios.
gracias.


----------



## timpeac

annettehola said:
			
		

> Timpeac, open your eyes. The thing about taboos here is a very good point. All cultures are full of them. And I do believe that to be a great part of the reason actually why that thing happened in DK. But of course! "Jyllands Posten" touched upon a taboo. A religious one at that. It's like lightening a cig on a petrol-station. How many taboos do you know of? I could mention these f.ex: 1) Sex 2) Death 3) Religion 4) Swear words as part of language 5) Patriotism 6) Nationalism 7) Football and other sports 8) Money ("How much do you earn?" Some people would choke if you asked them that simple question) and so on and so on and so on and so....
> Annette


Annette - of course it is because a taboo (to Muslims) was touched on there were problems and of course all cultures are full of them.

I never said any different.

If you take the time to read what I said I say that it is a country's right to impose its laws within its boundaries - and if it bases those laws on its own taboos then that is their affair.

It is a different matter if people try to impose their own taboo on another people without that taboo.


----------



## timpeac

Mod comment - can we please keep in mind the title of this thread - can any more _general_ discussion of taboos be taken to a new thread please, or they'll be deleted here. Discussion of taboo in relation to making fun of gods and prophets is fine of course.


----------



## maxiogee

okay, timpeac - how about this.

Those who worship/revere a God or prophet need to convince those who don't 
(a) why they should, and 
(b) why it is wrong to make fun of them. 

The worshippers need to do this through dialogue. 
They must not *expect* others to revere/worship as they do.

This applies to all religions - those who do not believe as you do need to be told more than "this is *the* way, XYZ has said so!"
One of the best ways to win the respect of others - be they believers in any religion or none - is to respect their beliefs, and not to interfere with those who practice a different faith.


----------



## timpeac

maxiogee said:
			
		

> okay, timpeac - how about this.
> 
> Those who worship/revere a God or prophet need to convince those who don't
> (a) why they should, and
> (b) why it is wrong to make fun of them.
> 
> The worshippers need to do this through dialogue.
> They must not *expect* others to revere/worship as they do.
> 
> This applies to all religions - those who do not believe as you do need to be told more than "this is *the* way, XYZ has said so!"
> One of the best ways to win the respect of others - be they believers in any religion or none - is to respect their beliefs, and not to interfere with those who practice a different faith.


I quite agree - not sure why you are directing this post at me in particular?


----------



## maxiogee

timpeac said:
			
		

> I quite agree - not sure why you are directing this post at me in particular?



Purely because you asked to get it back on topic. Nothing else.


----------



## timpeac

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Purely because you asked to get it back on topic. Nothing else.


 
Oh right, thank you then!! I thought you were suggesting I had said the opposite somewhere else.


----------



## Edwin

cherine said:
			
		

> Didn't Americans (some of them) boycott French products, only because French didn't want to go to war with them ?



Yes, some stupid Americans did that and even tried to remove the word French from the language by inventing new names for French fries, the French kiss, French bread, etc.

Now I read that some offended Muslims are changing the name of Danish pastry. 
(This may be dubious since it seems unlikely that they would have used this name, anyhow.)


----------



## cuchuflete

Hola Quebar,

Acabas de caer en la misma trampa que muchas persons...de sacar la conclusión que el dibujo tenía la intención de menospreciar la fe de alguien.  ¿Dónde está la prueba?  





			
				Quebar said:
			
		

> hola
> 
> la conclusion de Quebar aqui es que nadie debe burlarse ¿Dónde has visto un ejemplo de una críitica de la fe? o hacer comentarios mal intensionados y ¿Cómo es que te has puesto tan experto en saber las intensiones de los demás?  Si tienes algún conocimiento del artista de los dibujos, haz el favor de compartir lo que sabes, en vez de sacar conclusiones del mismo aire.   acerca de la fe de una persona o de un pueblo, en el mundo hay personas que defienden la libertad de expresion pero creen que el respeto a esta libertad es el menospreciar o criticar a otros, algo que me ha tocado aprender con mi propia experiencia es que mi libertad de expresion termina en donde comienza la de mi projimo.
> 
> no entiendo y lo digo con respeto ¿porque algunas personas se ofenden porque los musulmanes defienden su fe (creo que no la defienden de la mejor manera ), sin embargo estas cosas suceden por la falta de respeto. Algunos supuestos musulmanes se han actuado contra un supuesto ataque contra la fe de ellos, mientras que todavía no hemos visto tal ataque, sino unos dibujos satíricos contra terroristas que dicen que son fieles, mientras se comportan en contra a esta misma fe.
> 
> algo que todas las personas deberian y no tendrian que aprender es que en el mundo hay gente que va a ofender tu fe y que te va a rechazar incluso haran caricaturas un tanto ridiculas para denigrar tus creencias, por eso Jesus preparo a sus disicipulos porque sabia que estas cosas pasarian.  Ahhhh Jesús sabía de antemano de los dibujos satíricos...pues muy bien.
> 
> siendo razonable el respeto es algo escaso, creo que respetar a una cultura,religion,estilo de vida es algo que traeria paz, este tipo de burlas ya causaron muchas muertes por favor ya esta bueno de seguir en el tiempo de las cruzadas hoy en dia con amor y verdad se puede llegar a los corazones de las personas.
> 
> bueno esta es una opinion muy personal si aporta para este thread, bienvenidos los comentarios.
> gracias.


----------



## feuerbach

Edwin said:
			
		

> You can break many taboos and get by with it in some countries. *Provided the taboo is not prohibited by law*. Thus, in the US people can and some do deny the Holocaust happened and do make fun of Prophet Mohammed with impunity. We can and do make fun of any and all gods, Gods, religions, creeds, cults, sects, .... Some people even make fun of atheists.


 
I think that breaking taboos always carries consequences for the transgressor. 

If you live in one of the nine European countries that consider Holocaust denial a crime, and you decide to break the taboo turned into law (maybe these countries thought that the taboo wasn't strong enough so they decided to reinforce it with penal legislation), you could go to jail. As professor Juan Cole stated --in the link Outside posted-- "Most Western taboos are instead negative ones, not disallowal of attacks on symbols of goodness but the questioning of symbols of evil." 

It's true, as you argue, that in the United States you can deny the Holocaust happened without fear of having your sorry *ss thrown in jail. (But you can always be sued! ). 

So here's the million-dollar question? Why almost every newspaper in America declined to run the Danish cartoons? 

The answer is very simple: 9/11.


----------



## Brioche

Edwin said:
			
		

> Yes, some stupid Americans did that and even tried to remove the word French from the language by inventing new names for French fries, the French kiss, French bread, etc.
> 
> Now I read that some offended Muslims are changing the name of Danish pastry.
> (This may be dubious since it seems unlikely that they would have used this name, anyhow.)


 
In Denmark, Danish Pastries are not called Danish Pastries, but Vienese Bread (Wiener Brod)


----------



## feuerbach

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Another thing has happened in this thread. A number of people, with no factual backup, have stated the intentions of the newspaper that published the cartoons.
> 
> They have asserted, with great conviction, the motives for the publication. I wonder how many of those self-styled experts have any knowledge of Danish, or have ever read a copy of the paper in question, or are aware of it's readership. One person made reference to the newspaper's editorial stance, some 75 years ago!
> 
> It's very nice to hold such supposed expertise, but is it credible?
> 
> Some facts might make for interesting reading.


 
I don't think you'll find hard facts. 

Understanding the intentions of the newspaper will remain a matter of speculation. But of one thing I'm pretty sure: if they could go back in time, they wouldn't publish them. Probably the owner, editor, staff, etc. are sleeping every night and all night with one eye open. (Yes, it's difficult to forget what happened to Theo van Gogh, the Dutch artist). They might also be spending each night in different houses, just in case. And every morning, when they get in their cars, turn the ignition key, and no bomb goes off they smile and sigh profoundly. 

So why did they publish the cartoons? This is the best explanation that I found so far.

The Copenhagen Post explains: “Jyllands-Posten called for and printed the cartoons by various Danish illustrators, after reports that artists were refusing to illustrate works about Islam, out of fear of fundamendalist retribution. The newspaper said it printed the cartoons as a test of whether Muslim fundamentalists had begun affecting the freedom of expression in Denmark.”

http://blog.newspaperindex.com/2005/12/10/un-to-investigate-jyllands-posten-racism/

Yes, apparently it was a test, a kind of experiment. They wanted to know how healthy freedom of expression was in Denmark. What did they find out? Here are three preliminary findings:

a) Sometimes you just need to trust what reports say and avoid playing social scientist.

b) If Danish artists were refusing to illustrate works about Islam for any other reason besides the fear of fundamendalist retribution, we'll never find out what that reason was.

c) If Muslim fundamentalists had begun affecting the freedom of expression in Denmark, now they run the show.


----------



## cuchuflete

I agree with you...We have, for those who, like you and me, take the trouble to do a little bit of looking, the statement of the publisher and of the cited newspaper.  That's apt to be somewhat closer to the truth than the speculations...stated as if they were factual...seen in this thread.



			
				feuerbach said:
			
		

> I don't think you'll find hard facts.
> 
> Understanding the intentions of the newspaper will remain a matter of speculation. But of one thing I'm pretty sure: if they could go back in time, they wouldn't publish them. Probably the owner, editor, staff, etc. are sleeping every night and all night with one eye open. (Yes, it's difficult to forget what happened to Theo van Gogh, the Dutch artist). They might also be spending each night in different houses, just in case. And every morning, when they get in their cars, turn the ignition key, and no bomb goes off they smile and sigh profoundly.
> 
> So why did they publish the cartoons? This is the best explanation that I found so far.
> 
> The Copenhagen Post explains: “Jyllands-Posten called for and printed the cartoons by various Danish illustrators, after reports that artists were refusing to illustrate works about Islam, out of fear of fundamendalist retribution. The newspaper said it printed the cartoons as a test of whether Muslim fundamentalists had begun affecting the freedom of expression in Denmark.”
> 
> http://blog.newspaperindex.com/2005/12/10/un-to-investigate-jyllands-posten-racism/
> 
> Yes, apparently it was a test, a kind of experiment. They wanted to know how healthy freedom of expression was in Denmark. What did they find out? Here are three preliminary findings:
> 
> a) Sometimes you just need to trust what reports say and avoid playing social scientist.
> 
> b) If Danish artists were refusing to illustrate works about Islam for any other reason besides the fear of fundamendalist retribution, we'll never find out what that reason was.
> 
> c) If Muslim fundamentalists had begun affecting the freedom of expression in Denmark, now they run the show.


Whether the rioters are "Muslim fundamentalists" or just goons, rabble, paid thugs, or something entirely different...like angry young poor men full of frustration and ignorance...is something else we do not know with any certainty.  Calling those who commit arson, threaten murder, and use the riots as an excuse to go after their own nationals and countries not involved "Muslim fundamentalists" may be
a gross injustice to devout Muslims.  Or, it may be totally accurate.  I do not know which is true, or if both are.


----------



## Edwin

feuerbach said:
			
		

> If you live in one of the nine European countries that consider Holocaust denial a crime,



Where do you get the number 9 from? According to the Wikipedia entry for "holocaust denial": 



> Public denial of the Holocaust is a criminal offence in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland, and is punishable by fines and jail sentences.



I count 11 in Europe. Or, perhaps this is one of those Wikipedia entries that is in error?



			
				feuerbach said:
			
		

> So here's the million-dollar question? Why almost every newspaper in America declined to run the Danish cartoons?
> 
> The answer is very simple: 9/11.



You are probably right about that. On the other hand in what countries have the cartoons been published other than France and England (and only a few newspaper in those countries) ? 

I do see that according to this article the cartoons were published by the Philadelphia Inquirer and the American-Statesman in Austin, Texas, as well as by at least three university newspapers.  

By the way in case anyone is reading this and still hasn't seen them they can be found HERE along with many ancient images of the Prophet Mohammed.


----------



## annettehola

Good morning to all, the day is a blessed one,

I now see I have to do a lot today. Many people ask me many questions. Thank you. 

First this about taboos: This about the football-thing and other sports..ooh-ooh, I perhaps stepped on a taboo there, did I? Well; hooliganism, fx. I need not say anything more about that now, I think.
About sex? Do you talk to your colleagues or your grannies or your neighbor or your greengrocer's or your busdriver or your children about that theme? Is it something you bring up at dinners? And yet it certainly is a great and very important part of life for most of us. It's just that speaking about it, you know...This then, is a taboo: We feel strongly about a thing; yet we shall not speak about it, let alone have others do so. It is _*shameful*_. Terrible word.
Death and Religion are also taboos, I think. For the exact same reasons as I gave above. Check it out yourself next time you're having a pint or a coffee in the pub. What happened in DK was exactly because of a taboo being touched upon, a religious one, and it was an example of two fundamentally different cultures clashing in this respect. Danes *do not *have religious taboos (the majority, I mean), the muslims *do*. So hell broke loose. It was, in its own little twisted way, rather logical, as a matter of fact.

Now another thing which is really important. Yesterday Cuchu wrote:" Another thing has happened in this thread. A number of people, with no factual backup, have stated the intentions of the newspaper that published the cartoons.

They have asserted, with great conviction, the motives for the publication. I wonder how many of those self-styled experts have any knowledge of Danish, or have ever read a copy of the paper in question, or are aware of it's readership."

Two issues of very great importance: 1) The intentions of "Jyllands Posten" 2) The papers editorial stance.

I would like to begin with 2) In Denmark there are, just like in most other Northern European countries, two opposing sides to the press: A right-wing one and its opposite. I will tell you about it in one split-second, but first I need to say this, please note: In Denmark all newspapers are independent in the sense that they get their income from selling their paper and from the commercials they allow themselves to publish in them. In other words, a thing like a state-owned paper in Denmark is impossible. It does not exist. I stress this, because I am aware that in other countries in other parts of the world (I am not speaking of any in particular, take note) the press is state-owned. But Denmark has a democratic constitution, so in Denmark that sort of thing is impossible. "Jyllands Posten," then, is independent in this sense. It publishes itself, so to speak, and lives off itself. Speaking of "Jyllands Postens" friends in spirit, there are two other Danish newspapers that share its political views: "Berlingske Tidende" and its tabloid-edition, "BT," which, I believe, is slightly better than "The Sun," if that says a lot. "BT" and "Berlingske Tidende" are both published in the Publishing house called "Berlingske Hus." It is a publishing house. There is another one. It's called "Politikens Hus." Please don't get the word "Politiken" wrong. It means nothing more than "The Policy," and is not to be taken to mean that political parties determine its face. Re-read, please, what I have already stated about all newspapers being independent in Denmark. Now; "Politikens Hus" publishes "Ekstra Bladet," another "Sun," but with a little more "we-are-on-the-side-of-the-weak-and-exploited-that-are-not-too-smart-but-have-a-right-to-have-their-opinions-aired"-attitude. There you can also find the "Side 9 pigen" every week. A naked or halfnaked beauty on page 9 that smiles to you and tells you what she likes to do and where she's from. Then there is "Politiken." That's a critical, or - but that's my opinion only - half-critical paper that is sort of in the middle politically. With an inclination to the left. It is what most would call "decent." On the left-wing side we have:"Information" and "Weekendavisen." "Information" is more critical than any other but sometimes a bit locked in its own political conviction in my personal opinion. I always go for "Weekendavisen" myself. As the name indicates, this paper is a weekly paper, and for that reason I find the articles therein to be much more throughout and with arguments that open up to all sides and this is a thing I like. 
So much for the editorial stances as far as I know of of the Danish newspapers.
Now to 1) The intentions of "Jyllands Posten" when publishing the by now so famous drawings or cartoons. Sure the editor has been asked this question by the - among others - Danish press. Their answer is as follows:
1) It was in order to "test freedom of speech in our country."
2) Remember I told you that the drawings originally were for the publication of a childrens' book on the theme of islam? Well; it was "Jyllands Posten" who came up with the idea of publishing them in the paper first. They say this was the reason: None of the 12 drawers dared having their name published along with the drawings. Cowardly? Yes; some, but also in a certain sense respectful, for the drawings themselves are offending as they are stereotypes.

One thing I would like to say in favour of "Jyllands Posten." There is brain behind what they do. I do not personally agree with the general tone of the paper - I find it flat and flawless and downright boring at times and they always call "Bush" "President Bush," f.ex. a thing I find intolerable as if there was only that one president in the world, no, it's too much for me - but I have had my family send me editions of it these past weeks (among other newspapers) and 2 or 3 weeks ago I found this article*:"Rushdie: The USA corrupts language"* My attention was caught immediately, and I hurried to read it. It was about a new concept coming from the USA - or the Bush-administration - called "extraordinary rendition." Rushdie argues that such apparently harmless new expressions are frightening to the very bone, and a clear instrument for politics along the lines of self-justification. He writes (in my translation):"In the beginning was the word. When you begin to corrupt language, worse corruptions are sure to follow very fast. (.......) The terrible probability is that the outsourcing of torture as we see it now on the part of the USA will allow it to go free of punishment. Having said that, moral condemnation it cannot escape, though."

Judge who may. I say: "Jyllands Posten" is - though boring at times - open also in its own way. For in how many right-wing newspapers in the world would you be likely to read an article like the one I just mentioned?

Annette


----------



## maxiogee

annettehola said:
			
		

> First this about taboos: This about the football-thing and other sports..ooh-ooh, I perhaps stepped on a taboo there, did I? Well; hooliganism, fx. I need not say anything more about that now, I think.



Then the taboo is about "football hooliganism", not about "football"!


----------



## Outsider

Hi, *Feuerbach*. I'd like to make some comments on your latest posts.



			
				feuerbach said:
			
		

> So here's the million-dollar question? Why almost every newspaper in America declined to run the Danish cartoons?
> 
> The answer is very simple: 9/11.


It wasn't just in the U.S. that newspapers declined to publish the cartoons, though. After giving this some thought, I think the American media and the British media did the right thing by not publishing the cartoons. It would be adding fuel to an already hot fire. Some of the newspapers that reprinted the cartoons in Europe clearly did it as a challenge, a taunt to Muslims. While they were within their rights, I think it was counterproductive and immature of them to do it. 



			
				feuerbach said:
			
		

> The Copenhagen Post explains: “Jyllands-Posten called for and printed the cartoons by various Danish illustrators, after reports that artists were refusing to illustrate works about Islam, out of fear of fundamendalist retribution. The newspaper said it printed the cartoons as a test of whether Muslim fundamentalists had begun affecting the freedom of expression in Denmark.”


From what I've read (scroll down to the interview), the inspiration for the editors of the _Jyllands-Posten_ did not come from a general refusal to illustrate works about Islam, but from one children's book that wasn't being able to find an illustrator who would make a drawing of Mohammed for its cover. By the way, the book has since found an illustrator, and been published; its drawings are not offensive.

*To all:* I thought this opinion piece was a nice, cool-headed look at the controversy.


----------



## Edwin

Outsider said:
			
		

> *To all:* I thought this opinion piece was a nice, cool-headed look at the controversy.



The author of this article (like many people) confuse "verbal protests" with "violence" and "threats of violence".  Nobody to my knowledge begrudges Muslims their right to boycott Denmark, march in protest or whatever as long as they do so peacefully and avoid violence and threats of violence. For example, I see the following today from Reuters

_PESHAWAR, Pakistan - A Pakistani cleric announced Friday a $1 million bounty for killing a cartoonist who drew Prophet Muhammad, as thousands joined street protests and Denmark temporarily closed its embassy and advised its citizens to leave the country._ 

This and burning buildings is what disturbs people, not peaceful, non-violent protests.


----------



## Outsider

Edwin said:
			
		

> The author of this article (like many people) confuse "verbal protests" with "violence" and "threats of violence".  Nobody to my knowledge begrudges Muslims their right to boycott Denmark, march in protest or whatever as long as they do so peacefully and avoid violence and threats of violence.


In which part of the essay would you say he did that, specifically, Edwin?


----------



## nycphotography

feuerbach said:
			
		

> So here's the million-dollar question? Why almost every newspaper in America declined to run the Danish cartoons?
> 
> The answer is very simple: 9/11.


 
Nah, the real answer is.....    

Janet Jackson.


After the boobage hit the fan, the US media, being owned and run by corporations, is collectively terrified of its own shadow.

And the "non terrified" media outlets, are almost exclusively ultra liberal, gay, lesbian, peacenik, college-kid-with-a-cause, brotherly love focused publications that would think they shouldn't run the material because it is contrary to their editorial policy.

Now the real questions:  Did any of the larger free papers run the cartoons?  Either originally, or as part of the coverage of the aftermath?  NY Free Press?  Village Voice?

And why didn't USA Today or the NY Times run them as part of the coverage of the world events?  I sure would help to understand the outrage if we could see _the original material in it's original context._

Of course this is where the spineless corporate run media is dissapointing.

The cartoons in question are on a comprehensive wiki page.


----------



## cherine

Will this thread go on for ever ? 
Well, here's an interesting article, with a Pakistani point of view, specially check the last 3 paragraphs.

Did I mention the "conspiracy theory" before ? Well, seems I'm not the only one 

Yes, I believe many of the rioters don't even care about the Prophet, they just grabbed the occasion to express their anger towards other stuff. And yes, I believe some people have great interest in igniting these riots and imphasising them through the media to help their interests. (don't ask me who, I'll think myself a paranoiac)


----------



## Quebar

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Hola Quebar,
> 
> Acabas de caer en la misma trampa que muchas persons...de sacar la conclusión que el dibujo tenía la intención de menospreciar la fe de alguien.  ¿Dónde está la prueba?



con mucho respeto cuchuflete considero que siempre haces aportes muy buenos por eso tienes mas de doce mil post, pero tepido por favor que me demuestres una prueba de que esta caricatura no tiene la intencion de denigrar a nadie.
ahora pido disculpas si ofendi a alguien en este post, lo unico que intento hacer es dar una opinion basada, en el fundamento doctrinal cristiano, creo que esto aportaria(siempre y cuando no quede off-topic) mucho para el desarrollo del conocimiento.
otra pregunta si esto es solo una caricatura porque vi a un pueblo fuera de las calles con mucha furia y rabia, porque si solo en una caricatura satirica, ha influenciado tanto que hasta dos personas como tu y como yo discutamos o hablemos acerca de esto, creo que esto para ellos es mas serio de lo que creemos.

gracias cuchuflete por tu criticas

Jesucristo si sabia que hiba aver gente que se burlaria de el y de sus seguidores, pero el prometio estar con todos aquellos que no abandonaran su fe en EL de este modo el les daria fuerza para resistir todo tipo de burlas o de ataques, si no mira lo que hacian en los tiempos de neron a todos los cristianos los tomaban y los clavaban en lanzas y los incendiaban y eran ellos las lamparas que alumbraban las calles de la gloriosa roma.

pero bueno cuchu no sigo porque se puedo quedar off-topìc, se que estamos hablando del islam y de caricaturas y no de Jesucristo.

gracias otra vez por tus buenas cririticas.


----------



## nycphotography

cherine said:
			
		

> Well, here's an interesting article, with a Pakistani point of view, specially check the last 3 paragraphs.


 
Well, that link is a subscription site.. can't view it.

But for the Pakistani point of view, I'll offer some snippets from the Wiki page (public domain) on Blasphemy:

In 1982, President Zia ul-Haq introduced Section 295B to the Pakistan Penal Code punishing "defiling the Holy Qu'ran" with life imprisonment. In 1986, Section 295C was introduced, mandating the death penalty for "use of derogatory remarks in respect of the Holy Prophet".

In 1990 the Federal Shari’ah Court ruled that the penalty should be a mandatory death sentence, with no right to reprieve or pardon. 

In 2004, the Pakistani parliament approved a law to reduce the scope of the blasphemy laws. _The amendment to the law means that police officials will have to investigate accusations of blasphemy to ensure that they are well founded, before presenting criminal charges.  _[now THAT'S progressive!]

However, the law is used against political adversaries or personal enemies, by Muslim fundamentalists against Christians, Hindus and Sikhs, or for personal revenge. Especially Ahmadi-muslims are victim of the blasphemy-law. They claim to be muslims themselves, but under the blasphemy-law, they are not allowed to use islamic vocabulary or rituals.


----------



## GenJen54

cherine said:
			
		

> Will this thread go on for ever ?
> Well, here's an interesting article, with a Pakistani point of view, specially check the last 3 paragraphs.



That's an interesting POV, Cherine, and one that is quite valid.  Thank you for providing the link.  The CSM is known for its "out of box" reporting such as this, which is very credible.


----------



## Papalote

cherine said:
			
		

> Did I mention the "conspiracy theory" before ? Well, seems I'm not the only one


 
Not even Marx realized how far the _opium of the people_ would take _the people_. And while all these riots are taking place, the real problems of the people are being ignored.

Enjoy the weekend, y´all.

P


----------



## Edwin

Outsider said:
			
		

> In which part of the essay would you say he did that, specifically, Edwin?


  He did "that" when he said, for example:

"To grasp this, imagine a Muslim or European newspaper’s running cartoons analogous to the Danish ones, depicting Jews instead of Muslims--replete with hare-brained looks, hooked noses and the like. Well, you don’t have to imagine it, since every such cartoon depicting Ariel Sharon in that way has prompted screamingly loud protest from the Jewish community."

"screamingly loud protest" is quite different from rioting in the streets,  burning buildings, threating to kill people making objectional remarks, etc.


----------



## Outsider

Certainly. However, rereading the paragraph you quoted from, I don't get the impression that the author was trying to argue that the protests made by Jewish communities were just as reprehensible as those done by Muslims...


----------



## feuerbach

Outsider said:
			
		

> *To all:* I thought this opinion piece was a nice, cool-headed look at the controversy.


Outsider, thank you for the link. However, I have to join Edwin in criticizing the piece but for other reasons. 

The title of his piece "The Danish Cartoon Controversy: Don't Buy It" sums up his take on this issue. His underlying message is: “People: you are overreacting. This controversy is futile.” The problem I have with his line of argumentation is that he fails to validate the Muslim perspective on why they find the cartoons insulting.

He first speculates on why Muslims think the cartoons are offensive. “Muslims think the cartoons offensive for two reasons. The first is that the prophet is not supposed to be pictorially depicted. The second is that the pictorial depictions are themselves thought to be offensive.”

Then he reflects on these two speculations. He states, "As for reason one: I frankly don’t see, and have never seen, the Scriptural warrant for the ban on pictorial depiction in Islam, so I find myself unimpressed on that score." Because he doesn't see or has never seen such Scriptural warrant, he simply disregards it as a valid reason for Muslims to be p*ssed. Wouldn't it be better idea to do some research on the topic? Intellectual laziness isn't a good quality if you are a college professor. The fact that he is unimpressed with this argument doesn't mean that Muslims are or should be unimpressed. 

Then he argues, "The cartoons aren’t offensive because of their depiction of the Prophet Muhammad. They're offensive because of the way they depict Arabs." First of all, not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs. Religion and ethnicity are two distinct cultural categories. Sometimes they overlap but other times they don't. Second, it is not clear who is or should be offended. Does he personally find the cartoons offensive because of the way they depict Arabs? Or is he saying that the rest of us, Muslims and non-Muslims, Arabs and non-Arabs find them or should find them offensive because of the way they depict Arabs?” 

If he were Arab and/or Muslim, I would rest my case. His testimony offers a different perspective that I hadn’t heard of. But if he was just guessing or even worse, prescribing the way Muslims should react to the cartoons, I would find it problematic to say the least. If I were a Muslim --again, I’m not sure if he is--, I would be offended by his arrogance in telling me how should I think and feel, or what should offend me or what shouldn’t. 

The guy stated his opinion very clearly. The cartoons aren’t offensive because they depict the Prophet but because of the way they depict Arabs. My main problem with his position is that he isn't exercising empathy, that is, trying to see life from the perspective of those offended. If (a) we try harder to put ourselves in the shoes of Muslims outraged by these cartoons and (b) we stop thinking for them, or coming up with clever and creative hypotheses, or trying to impose our perspectives on them and (c) we start doing some serious listening, maybe we'll be able to use this "crisis" to develop a better understanding among culturally and religiously different groups that urgently need to learn to live together under the same sky and on the same small planet.


----------



## Outsider

feuerbach said:
			
		

> If he were Arab and/or Muslim, I would rest my case. His testimony offers a different perspective that I hadn’t heard of. He says that he is gay and conservative but I'm not sure if he reveals his religion (if he has one.)


LOL... He's not talking about himself in that part of the essay, Feuerbach!  
And, based on his name, I would guess Mr. Khawaja is indeed from the East.


----------



## feuerbach

Outsider said:
			
		

> LOL... He's not talking about himself in that part of the essay, Feuerbach!
> And, based on his name, I would guess Mr. Khawaja is indeed from the East.


 
I stand corrected! I also want to make Jerry Seinfeld's words mine: 

"Not that there's anything wrong with that!" _- Jerry, denying that he is gay, but not wanting to be seen as anti-gay, in "The Outing" _

I'm about to post my response on this guy's website. Como dicen en Argentina, lo voy a chicanear un poco. However, I think I'll delete the conservative gay part. (I'll also do some research on gay rights in predominatly Muslims countries.) So if you caught any other gross misrepresentions I made to his persona, this would be a good time to put them forward.


----------



## Outsider

If you're going to post a comment to his essay, my suggestion is that you read the other comments first. Others may have already said what you want to say.


----------



## cuchuflete

This thread has drifted very far off topic.  Please open new threads and declare on any and all related matters.


----------

