• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Cartoons Under Fire

Revasser

Terrible Dancer
jamaesi said:
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."
Of course, I acknowledge the insensitivity in the initial printing of the cartoons and I don't think I would have allowed it, had I been the editor of the newspaper. However, the kind of overreaction from the Muslim world to the cartoons is childish. I would have felt sympathy for them if they'd kept it at peaceful demonstrations and official protests to the Danish government (even if said government is not and should not be under any obligation to censor free media), but the threats and the violence and the calls for attacks on Scandinavians for the actions of a single Danish publication evaporated any sympathy I might have had.

Other religions have their Prophets and God(s) lampooned all the time. I can't even count the number of times I've seen satire of Christianity and Jesus. And the Christians believe Jesus IS God, not simply a prophet! However, the difference is, while they may be offended, even horribly offended, they don't start riots and threaten to kill people. If the those among Muslim population of these nations that pull these kinds of stunts truly expect to be part of the larger world in a role other than a giant oil pump, they need to have thicker skin than this and grow up a bit.

The ones I really do feel sorry for are the moderate, peaceful Muslims, and I apologise if I've offended any of you good folks here. Having this sort of thing happen must be worse for you guys than anyone else.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Jayhawker Soule said:
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.
Ok, now I get what you are saying Jay.
Government sponsored censorship = Bad.
Privately sponsored censorship = good.

Nice logic, that is. Last time I checked, censorship is censorship regardless of how you dress it up. That being said, I do agree that it was perhaps ill conceived for the different newspapers to re-run the cartoons. It is simply adding fuel to an already raging fire.

I am with TerryWoodenPic on this one. Most of us walk around on eggshells, exercising personal censorship on a daily basis. Tell me Jay, are graphic depictions of Adolf Hitler verboten as well? How about amusing pictures of George W.? How about the cartoon that the Joint Chief's of staff just came out swinging at?

Frankly, I am disgusted by the cartoon that the Joint Chief's were so upset over. Would I call for the head of the paper that published them? No. I prefer my truth unvarnished, rather than having some ever-so-thoughful Big Brother filter what he thinks I should see. Again, I do not think the French newspaper was wise to reprint the images, but there are better ways to lodge ones disatisfaction. It is not like people are forced to buy a given newspaper.

Or are political cartoons perfectly fine, and only religious cartoons that fall beyond the parameters of good taste?
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Jayhawker Soule said:
What a pathetic little strawman that was.
Pathetic? Perhaps, perhaps not. I suppose that you do not like having your concept boiled down to the lowest common denominator. Imho, that is in effect, what you are saying my friend.

Unless I am reading you wrong, and you are quite welcome to correct me, it would seem that you are espousing the need for personal cencorship. Oh and btw, just how is taking ones religion more seriously than one perhaps should, "wholy irrelevant" to this discussion? I would tend to expect that that is the entire point. We are all so hung up on offending others that we have missed the entire point. Tell me, Jayhawker Soule, when does respect become docile acceptance?
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
Perhaps everyone should read Wilkipedia that Jamesan has posted the link:


The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after complaints were made about twelve editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The cartoons were printed in the Danish daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten on September 30, 2005. Some of the cartoons were reprinted in the Norwegian Christian newspaper Magazinet on January 10, 2006, and later in the German newspaper Die Welt, the French daily France Soir, and many other European newspapers. In response to an outcry from the Muslim community, the employment of the chief editor of France Soir was terminated by Raymond Lakah, the Franco-Egyptian (and Roman Catholic) owner of the newspaper.

The drawings, which include a depiction of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, were meant as satirical illustrations accompanying an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech. Jyllands-Posten commissioned and published the cartoons in response to the difficulty of Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen to find artists to illustrate his children's book about Muhammad, for fear of violent attacks by extremist Muslims. Islamic teachings forbid the depiction of Muhammad as a measure against idolatry (see aniconism); however, in the past there have been non-satirical depictions of Muhammad by Muslims. Although Jyllands-Posten maintains that the drawings were an exercise in free speech, many people (Muslim and otherwise) in Denmark and elsewhere view them as provocative, offensive, disrespectful, blasphemic and islamophobic.

In reaction to the articles, several death threats have been made, resulting in two newspaper cartoonists reportedly going into hiding, and the newspaper enhancing its security precautions. The foreign ministries of eleven Islamic countries demanded action from the Danish government, and Libya eventually closed its embassy in Denmark in protest after the government refused to censure the newspaper or apologise. The Danish prime minister said, "The government refuses to apologise because the government does not control the media or a newspaper outlet; that would be in violation of the freedom of speech". A large consumer boycott was organised in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and elsewhere in other Arabic speaking countries. Recently the foreign ministers of seventeen Islamic countries renewed calls for the Danish government to punish those responsible for the cartoons, and to ensure that such cartoons are not published again. The Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League have demanded that the United Nations impose international sanctions upon Denmark.[1] Protests have also taken place against the cartoons.

Something that started in September last year, which any sensitive persons respecting another person's religion would definitely agreed that further publishing and propagating the cartoon is definitely wrong, whether in the name of free press or free expression.
 

jamaesi

To Save A Lamb
Perhaps everyone should read Wilkipedia that Jamesan has posted the link:
Did you mean me? My name is Jamaesi. o_O

Something that started in September last year, which any sensitive persons respecting another person's religion would definitely agreed that further publishing and propagating the cartoon is definitely wrong, whether in the name of free press or free expression.
But yeah, I do agree with that. Beating a dead horse just to hurt and offend people is just as childish and immature and the reaction we see now in the Muslim community.
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
By the way, are there any satire about Jesus published in the Muslim world? Not likely, because Muslim treated Jesus with respect as one of the prophet from God.

Why can't the west give the Muslim population the decency of respect? You can satire about Osama bin Ladin or any other human muslim being a funny terrorist etc, but why bring in Mohamed?
 

jamaesi

To Save A Lamb
Jesus is a respected Prophet in Islam, we just don't believe him to be either the son of G-d or G-d.
 

Kowaki

Member
Because, attacks on the US were motivated, in whole or in part, by Islam. What American with moral clarity would even think of respecting such a man?
 

mr.guy

crapsack
kowaki said:
Because, attacks on the US were motivated, in whole or in part, by Islam. What American with moral clarity would even think of respecting such a man?
Always a privelage to see new geniuses roll into town.

edit: let me add: sheesh!
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
Kowaki said:
Because, attacks on the US were motivated, in whole or in part, by Islam. What American with moral clarity would even think of respecting such a man?
Chomsky:
If reducing the threat of terror were a high priority for Washington or London, as it certainly should be, there would be ways to proceed--even apart from the unmentionable idea of withdrawing participation. The first step, plainly, is to try to understand its roots. With regard to Islamic terror, there is a broad consensus among intelligence agencies and researchers. They identify two categories: the jihadis, who regard themselves as a vanguard, and their audience, which may reject terror but nevertheless regard their cause as just. A serious counter-terror campaign would therefore begin by considering the grievances , and where appropriate, addressing them, as should be done with or without the threat of terror. There is broad agreement among specialists that al-Qaeda-style terror "is today less a product of Islamic fundamentalism than of a simple strategic goal: to compel the United States and its Western allies to withdraw combat forces from the Arabian Peninsula and other Muslim countries" (Robert Pape, who has done the major research on suicide bombers). Serious analysts have pointed out that bin Laden's words and deeds correlate closely. The jihadis organized by the Reagan administration and its allies ended their Afghan-based terrorism inside Russia after the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan, though they continued it from occupied Muslim Chechnya, the scene of horrifying Russian crimes back to the 19 th century. Osama turned against the US in 1991 because he took it to be occupying the holiest Arab land; that was later acknowledged by the Pentagon as a reason for shifting US bases from Saudi Arabia to Iraq. Additionally, he was angered by the rejection of his effort to join the attack against Saddam.

The senior CIA analyst responsible for tracking Osama bin Laden from 1996, Michael Scheuer, writes that "bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world." Osama's concern "is out to drastically alter U.S. and Western policies toward the Islamic world," Scheuer writes: "He is a practical warrior, not an apocalyptic terrorist in search of Armageddon." As Osama constantly repeats, "Al Qaeda supports no Islamic insurgency that seeks to conquer new lands." Preferring comforting illusions, Washington ignores "the ideological power, lethality, and growth potential of the threat personified by Osama bin Laden, as well as the impetus that threat has been given by the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq, [which is] icing on the cake for al Qaeda." "U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990s. As a result, [Scheuer adds,] it is fair to conclude that the United States of America remains bin Laden's only indispensable ally."
http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky01242006.html
 

jamaesi

To Save A Lamb
Because, attacks on the US were motivated, in whole or in part, by Islam. What American with moral clarity would even think of respecting such a man?
Right, and Saddam was working with Usama.

Any other trash you want to share or should I just go watch FOXNews?
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
Nobody with an ounce of common sense would believe it. Common sense, believe it or not, crosses religious lines.

To get back on topic, I think that while it was tacky to do it and disrespectful, in this day and age pretty much everything is fair game. Not reading/watching what you don't like is an excellent skill.
 

jamaesi

To Save A Lamb
They were, believe it or not. But, I don't expect an islam would.
First off, I'm a Muslim. Not an Islam. Islam means submission, Muslim means one who submits. You're only making yourself look silly by doing that.

Secular dictators do not work with religious fantatics. Usama found Saddam's regiem very unIslamic. It's ridiculous to try and link the two- Bush is failing miserably at that as he changes the reasons for the war in Iraq more often than normal people change their underwear.
 

Kowaki

Member
I wasn't talking about Hussein, i was talking about islam-fueled attacks. learn to read, please.
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
It was a bit unclear what you were referring to, Kowaki: Saddman and Usama working together, or the attacks being driven by Islam. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Any religion can be twisted into violence. Absolutely any. Christians have bombed abortion clinics, pagans have attacked labs that experiment on animals... Islam is not in any sense unique in that some of its writings are mistranslated and twisted into violence. This has happened to most every religion throughout history.
 

Kowaki

Member
Islam is the one that perpetartes the most attacks against people as a whole. "Behead all those who insult Islam" "behead all those who mock Islam" "Europe you will pay! Your 9/11 is on its way!" "Behead all those who say Islam is violent". They kill and murder people they dont agree with, the middle-east in anti-semetic and vows death to all jews, and infidels, and they vow death to all that oppose their vile agenda. Maybe if they start respecting anything, they will get respect in turn. you reap what you sow.
 

jamaesi

To Save A Lamb
Extremists do.

Your average Muslim doesn't. I've yet to wish a firey wrath on anyone cause they make of Islam.



I don't judge Christians by Pat Robertson or those who bomb abortion clinics or those who murder homosexuals. I don't see why you seem to think it's fine to judge me by what Usama does.
 
Top