Cartoons Under Fire

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

I totally agree. But that said, republishing the cartoons in country after country is insensitive, irresponsible, and stupid.

 

[jamaesi]

I totally agree. But that said, republishing the cartoons in country after country is insensitive, irresponsible, and stupid.

They do have the right to do so, but then again, just because they have the right to doesn't mean you absolutely must publish trash. I wish people would stop doing such stupid things, but that's part of life, that people will do things that I don't agree with, but as long as no one is hurt, I'll just have to deal with it.

We are all adults- at least most of us. ; ) I'm horrified that people can be so disrespectful to ANY prophet, from Moses to Joseph Smith- but things like this must be allowed or otherwise we are lying when we said we have freedom of speech and press and thought and so on. Opposing views are not to be silenced or their holders harmed just because they think differently. If you are not in agreement, that's fine, one of the great things about freedom is you can believe whatever you want without fear of punishment. Just go on with your life and ignore it, or protest in a nonviolent manner. These kidnappings and death threats make me ashamed.

 

[Kowaki]

i read about this on another site, what a bunch of idiotic crybabies. I can't take this incessant islamic whining anymore. They insult anything they want and murder innocents, and get all enraged when someone does a little satire? again, what a bunch of crybabies.

 

[greatcalgarian]

It is a matter of cultural difference and value, ethic etc that cause all these problems. It is very insensitive to publish those cartoon, which may not be offensive at all to the Western Christian community, but could be hurting the feeling of the Eastern Muslim Orthodox or Conservatives. Their upbringing can only resulted in their violent response to the publishing of the cartoon completely not acceptable in their culture. It is most important for the West to communicate with the East and understand each other culture, and respect each other, then only this type of misunderstanding will not happen.

 

[YmirGF]

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.

Jayhawker Soule,

I am personally offended by your remark. Full stop.

Does that make it wrong for you to have made the remark?
Are you perhaps being judgmental and insensitive?

Is it wrong for me to even feel insulted?
Should I be sitting here, feeling penitent and somewhat foolish?

Jayhawker, I am not remotely impressed by what I loosely refer to as "the lemming syndrome". By your standard of logic, I should be respectful of Scientology, Crop Circle Fanatics, Satanist, Fundamentalist Christians, Islam, et al. That simply does not compute. Just by the fact there are 1.3 billion Muslim on our tiny rock, does not make them right, more so, if they think it does.

In all honesty, Jayhawker, I do not follow any religion of man for very good reasons.
It is my conviction that it is not possible to be too irreverent. I have a nagging suspicion that you may disagree. From my standpoint, it might just be time for mankind to collectively take his religions off their pedestals and get on with reality.

Further to this, I think that people take their religions far too seriously, almost as seriously as they take themselves. Look where it has gotten us.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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

I agree with midnight blue.

[font=&quot]The most violent and most vocal do set the agenda.
The extreme varieties of right wingers. Moslems, Christians, Jews etc.
We all tiptoe around trying not to upset them.
We all tiptoed around Hitler... Where did it lead us.?
[/font]
Terry____________________________
Blessed are those who bring peace, they shall be children of God

 

[Eynah]

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.

Political correctness has nothing to do with being respectful. It has to do with the fear that you're going to be seen as a bad person for not agreeing with something, or accepting something no matter how wrong it is. It's something that changes what you're supposed to call someone every other day.

That doesn't mean you respect them. If anything, I think political correctness does more harm than good. If I'm against something, or I think that an action is wrong, the moment I could try to say anything that could be taken wrong I have the PC police on my back, breathing down my neck. Yet, if I am a white male Christian, someone can bad mouth me to high heavens but that's okay because in the past my race, my gender, my religion has had bigots in it.

I'm sick of it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Political correctness has nothing to do with being respectful.

And being respectful has nothing to do with political correctness.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am personally offended by your remark. Full stop.

Does that make it wrong for you to have made the remark?
Are you perhaps being judgmental and insensitive?

Is it wrong for me to even feel insulted?
Should I be sitting here, feeling penitent and somewhat foolish?

You should certainly be feeling "somewhat foolish" if only because your remarks are wholly irrelevant.

• You can call the Virgin Mary an ugly whore for all I care, and I will defend your right to do so.
• Furthermore, should you print that in the press, I will defend the right of the press to do so.
• But if, in the context of international protest, you reprint the claim in a newspaper over which I have some control, I'll fire your ***.

And yes, you should feel insulted.

 

[Revasser]

I find the violent protests and death threats to be detestable, quite frankly. The extent of the overreaction of the (mostly) young Muslims in various countries would be laughable if it wasn't so disgusting and, dare I say it, typical of the actions of the that group of people.

I would say that they needed to get to their mosques and do some serious prayer if they are so insecure in their faith that they resort to this kind of response over a bit of sattire, but I suspect that the kind of mosques that these angry young Muslims frequent are probably the extremist kind.

This kind of thing is the reason why so many people in the West have such little respect for Islam. All they ever really see or hear about is angry young fools pulling this kind of crap every week for most pitiful reasons.

While I, perhaps, would not have published the cartoons in the first place, I wholeheartedly support others' right to do so. Nobody has the right not to be offended.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Nobody has the right not to be offended.

:help: huh? :help:

 

[michel]

I totally agree. But that said, republishing the cartoons in country after country is insensitive, irresponsible, and stupid.

I agree wholeheartedly. The cartoons were, at the very least insensitive, at the worst, come under the Forum rule of "purposeless inflammatory ". Come to think of it, The Forum rules would be equaly valid as a set of rules to use in the 'outside world'.

The fundamentalist militants are small in number, and their intent is to kill. They walk about with a chip on their shoulder so large they bend under the weight.

Slightly off topic, but pertinent to the conversation, an Asian was being interviewed on the TV this morning. He lives and works in London. The day after the bombings, he noticed that he was getting 'looks' on the bus. Out of interest, he grew a beard; the bus might be full, but no European would sit next to him; a Rastafariasn sat next to him and said "Now you know what it's like ". The Asian asked him what he meant "Being at the bottom of the barrel" replied the Rastafarian.

 

[Revasser]

:help: huh? :help:

Just what I said. Nobody has the right not to be offended. Free speech means that people are free to say things you won't like and that will offend you. Nobody has the right to restrict the speech of others because what they're saying is offensive. Well, not in most of the Western world, anyway. It's, unfortunately, not something our brothers and sisters in most Middle-Eastern Islamic nations share, as yet.

Mostly, I was saying it in response to the resolutions that some nations are lobbying to have passed by the UN, making it 'illegal' to disrespect someone's religious beliefs. Essentially, they wish to have the right not to be offended.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Free speech means that people are free to say things you won't like and that will offend you.

Thanks for sharing. What, if anything, does this have to do with the OP?

 

[Revasser]

Thanks for sharing. What, if anything, does this have to do with the OP?

Yeah, not a great deal, you're right. Sorry about that.

I've just been discussing this topic in a bunch of different places tonight, and it's hard to keep track of which thread on which forum is discussing which specifics of the topic.

And I have a tendency to rant a little when a situation is as mind-bogglingly ludicrous and surreal as this one with the cartoons is.

 

[Flappycat]

The hardline Muslims blew it out of proportion because they cannot tolerate anything other than strict observance of their religion. They need to be told clearly and explicitly that there will be no further action on the matter until they choose to discuss the matter civilly. They need to take responsibility for their thoughts and feelings, and they will not attempt to govern the thoughts and feelings of others. If they wanted laws against racially or culturally offensive cartoons, they should have organized themselves and other interested parties into a coalition to drive the votes for it. As it is, they are being self-centered and indefensibly childish, and the only proper reaction to their behavior is to treat it as such. As far as I'm concerned, they've pretty much blown any chances they may have had of any amount of sympathy.

 

[jamaesi]

And I have a tendency to rant a little when a situation is as mind-bogglingly ludicrous and surreal as this one with the cartoons is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_veneration_for_Muhammad

I personally, as a Muslim, think the veneration for Muhammed is anti-Qur'anic. But you still have to understand how other Muslims feel about him. Other religious groups get terribly offended when their G-ds or Prophets are treated in such a manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons#Christianity


I'm terribly ashamed of the reaction to this from the Muslim world, but at the same time I think it's horrid that people feel the need to go around offending an already volatile situation just "because they can."

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

The students were debating this at work today. They mostly went in the direction that the publishers were stupid to run those cartoons, that boycotting their goods and other peaceful protests were to be expected after showing material so obviously likely to offend, but that violent protest reversed sympathies in the other direction and were inexcusable. Then someone pointed out that the UK's Labour Party were trying to bring in a controversial law forbidding 'Incitement to Religious Hatred', might not those cartoons be deemed so provocative that they could fall foul of such a law? The room went crazy after that, everyone was arguing about the potential bias & abuse in enforcing laws limiting free speech.

Just thought people here might find that interesting.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm terribly ashamed of the reaction to this from the Muslim world, but at the same time I think it's horrid that people feel the need to go around offending an already volatile situation just "because they can."

Bingo!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then someone pointed out that the UK's Labour Party were trying to bring in a controversial law forbidding 'Incitement to Religious Hatred', might not those cartoons be deemed so provocative that they could fall foul of such a law? The room went crazy after that, everyone was arguing about the potential bias & abuse in enforcing laws limiting free speech.

Precisely, which is why I support Prime Minister Rasmussen when he "rejected calls to punish the paper, saying the government cannot censor the press."