Cartoons Under Fire

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sorry Jayhawker, I am already very tired of being politically correct.

I'm sorry that you'e too tired to be minimally respectful of a religion followed by many millions of decent people. I'm sure that it's not due to an excess of effort.

 

[Smoke]

What a marvelous picture of self righteous might - MidnightBlue pummeling a strawman from atop his soapbox.

These people are undeniably (a) violent and (b) irrational. Regardless of how you feel about it, I stand by my position: Violent, irrational people cannot be permitted to set the standards of behavior throughout the world.

 

[Buttercup]

Jayhawker,

In reference to your above post to YMIRGF...in response might I say that you seem to enjoy yourself running Christianity into the ground....and we don't call for your death.

 

[Smoke]

I'm sorry that you'e too tired to be minimally respectful of a religion followed by many millions of decent people. I'm sure that it's not due to an excess of effort.

Would "minimal respect" include not arresting and/or killing adherents of another religion? Considering how Christians, Jews, Bahá'ís, and Zoroastrians are treated in many Muslim countries, do you really think cartoons are the proper target of moral outrage?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can you imagine if Christians threatened to kidnap and kill people every time Jesus was portrayed in a humorous way? The writers of Family Guy would have to go into hiding....

The Muslims around the world who are reacting so violently to little drawings are doing themselves a great disservice.

Yes, and one can only applaud when one reads ...

ordanian independent tabloid al-Shihan reprinted three of the cartoons on Thursday, saying people should know what they were protesting about, AFP news agency reports.

"Muslims of the world be reasonable," wrote editor Jihad Momani.

"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?" [ibid]​

But I hold that ethics is both more nuanced and more principled than that suggested by the Islamophobes. I believe that it is actually possible for the editor at France Soir to be wrong no matter how wrong the response among radical Islamic fundamentalists.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... might I say that you seem to enjoy yourself running Christianity into the ground....and we don't call for your death.

How you interpret my posts is wholly irrelevant to me. I have never sanctioned the steriotyping and denigration of Christians. Were a newspaper to come out with a cartoon showing Jesus urinating on The Origin of the Species, I would find it unethical and objectionable.. Were a newspaper to come out with a cartoon showing the Vatican as a den of pedophiles, I would find it unethical and objectionable. I do, hopwever, enjoy running pathetic, attrocious, and self-serving argument and innuendo into the ground ... yours included.

 

[Smoke]

I believe that it is actually possible for the editor at France Soir to be wrong no matter how wrong the response among radical Islamic fundamentalists.

Do you believe it's always wrong to say or print something that offends somebody else?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Would "minimal respect" include not arresting and/or killing adherents of another religion?

It sure would. Thanks for asking.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you believe it's always wrong to say or print something that offends somebody else?

 

[Sunstone]

**MOD POST**

Attack each others ideas all you want, but don't personally attack each other.

 

[Smoke]

No, seriously. I'm not being a smartass, even though it probably looked that way from the way I phrased that. I disagree with your position here, but I respect your intellect, and I'd really like to know where you're coming from. Obviously, if you never say anything that offends anybody, you're never going to say much. So what criteria determine what's acceptable?

 

[Buttercup]

How you interpret my posts is wholly irrelevant to me. I have never sanctioned the steriotyping and denigration of Christians. Were a newspaper to come out with a cartoon showing Jesus urinating on The Origin of the Species, I would find it unethical and objectionable.. Were a newspaper to come out with a cartoon showing the Vatican as a den of pedophiles, I would find it unethical and objectionable. I do, hopwever, enjoy running pathetic, attrocious, and self-serving argument and innuendo into the ground ... yours included.

Look, my point of my short post above is that in a free society we have the right to voice our opinions about whatever topics we choose. If a thought expressed or cartoon published does not sit well with some people....then so be it. Your thoughts on Christianity might not sit well with some people..so be it. My thoughts do no sit well with you or others...so be it. That's life on a forum. But we have the protection under law to express ourselves. That is the only way it should be.

Yes, I might disagree as well with a cartoon showing Jesus urinating on The Origin of The Species ...but, the difference between me and some Islamics is that I would not call for the death of the people who published it, nor would I expect the firing of the editor who published it. A stern warning perhaps, but not a firing.

I think political correctness has gone mad.

 

[mr.guy]

Let's see, where can i find a picture of jesus being sodomized?...i assume i'd have your full support if i chose to post it here, right buttercup? Or should i reasonably expect some censoring, or "editorilizing" from the mods/admins?

 

[Buttercup]

Let's see, where can i find a picture of jesus being sodomized?...i assume i'd have your full support if i chose to post it here, right buttercup? Or should i reasonably expect some censoring, or "editorilizing" from the mods/admins?

If you re-read my post above...you can assume that I would disagree with a cartoon such as that being posted.

But, once again, I would not call for the death of the moderator, nor his/her firing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... I'd really like to know where you're coming from. Obviously, if you never say anything that offends anybody, you're never going to say much. So what criteria determine what's acceptable?

If you want to know where I'm coming from, read what I say, not what you think I mean.

In the OP I quoted an article and then said:

I support Prime Minister Rasmussen and Raymond Lakah on this one ...​

Recall that Rasmussen, one of the two people for whom I expressed support, ...

... welcomed the paper's apology, but has rejected calls to punish the paper, saying the government cannot censor the press.​

I did not, and do not, support those Islamic Fundamentalists who are rioting in an effort to effect such censorship.

Nevertheless, no matter how steadfastedly I support Rasmussen, and no matter how vicerally I oppose radical Islam, I believe that the pictures were insensitive bordering on bigoted, and that republishing them in France - particularly given the recent developments in France - was grossly stupid and irresponsible.

 

[Buttercup]

Publications in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain also re-ran the Danish cartoons on Wednesday to show support for free speech.

I agree that this was a very stupid thing to do.....but, it doesn't say in your snippet that France re-ran them does it?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

agree that this was a very stupid thing to do.....but, it doesn't say in your snippet that France re-ran them does it?

Good grief: "reran" in the sense of running the offending pictures after they had been run in Denmark and violently protested.

 

[Smoke]

If you want to know where I'm coming from, read what I say, not what you think I mean.

I am. I was asking a question, which you are apparently declining to answer. That's your prerogative.

 

[Buttercup]

I thought France ran them first and other European countries followed suit....my mistake.

 

[jamaesi]

While the cartoons were in very poor taste, I think reacting in violence of threats of violence is in even poorer taste.