The fact is, nobody who is saying the cartoons are offensive did any efford to explain why. Please look at the drwaings that are posted in this thread and tell me what's offensive about them.
OK.
1. Lampooning the holy Prophet in any way. Offensive.
2. Inferring that somehow the Prophet has something to do with or endorses terrorism. Offensive.
3. Putting the holy Prophet at heaven's gate, turning away folks because, hey, there's no more virgins. Offensive.
If you can't see even some remotely offensive angle to these then you are a pretty insensitive person. This sounds like "I WISH BLACKS (OR INSERT ETHNIC GROUP HERE) WOULD JUST GET OVER IT"
And Jesus Christ submerged in Urine??? Virgin Mary smeared with Feces???
Our government PAID for at least one of these!!!
Are we also all on board with censoring music that might offend certain people???
no but I ain't going to yell "fire" in a crowded indoor record swap either
Yelling "Fire" would directly put people's life in danger and that's why it's illegal.
Music and art can only put people's life in danger if people react to it in a violent way....reacting violently should be illegal, NOT the art itself.
These cartoons are open to many interpretations. They are not very hateful so they leave open the possibility to look at different layers. For example, the one dealing with "running out of virgins" is clearly not aimed at the quran, Islam or the prophet per se, but it's aimed at people who are doing certain things {i} in the name of[/i]. Same goes for the one with Mohammed with a bomb on his head.
Guzzo, your last posts are weak.
That is your interpretation of it, I don't think you can expect a devout Muslim to make that distinction.[/b] "Oh, it's not about the Prophet, it just uses the Prophet to get at these crazy extremists." Come on man.
1- these cartoons were published 4 months ago in Denmark.
2- Don't underestimate the "devout muslim".
"come on man"
Again: the danish imams touring the middle east carried some very different cartoons. I will be the first one to say these cartoons are crossing a border (I will not post them here because they are truely hateful). The ones you can see in this thread might be offensive to some but are not offensive enough for this kind of comflict. Ask any sane muslim, I would say.
Music and art can only put people's life in danger if people react to it in a violent way....reacting violently should be illegal, NOT the art itself.
I agree 100% however we are talking about doing something inflammatory and releasing it in a newspaper. I mean seriously wht did the paper expect for this, thank you notes?
It was a dumb move for the paper to publish this and it was dumb for violence to have stemmed from it. I'm not siding with the nuts or the paper in this, I'm siding on common sense. If you are in a position of prestige for gods sake act like it.
Music and art can only put people's life in danger if people react to it in a violent way....reacting violently should be illegal, NOT the art itself.
I agree 100% however we are talking about doing something inflammatory and releasing it in a newspaper. I mean seriously wht did the paper expect for this, thank you notes?
It was a dumb move for the paper to publish this and it was dumb for violence to have stemmed from it. I'm not siding with the nuts or the paper in this, I'm siding on common sense. If you are in a position of prestige for gods sake act like it.
I agree it was dumb for the paper if they were looking to sell papers to Muslims, but on the other hand should their freedom of expression be held hostage because it might be inflammatory?? Maybe that's the statement they were trying to make??
The ones you can see in this thread might be offensive to some but are not offensive enough for this kind of comflict. Ask any sane muslim, I would say.
Shits mad offensive to me and I'm not even Muslim. I can't even begin to imagine how pissed any Muslim, sane or nutjob would be.
Music and art can only put people's life in danger if people react to it in a violent way....reacting violently should be illegal, NOT the art itself.
I agree 100% however we are talking about doing something inflammatory and releasing it in a newspaper. I mean seriously wht did the paper expect for this, thank you notes?
It was a dumb move for the paper to publish this and it was dumb for violence to have stemmed from it. I'm not siding with the nuts or the paper in this, I'm siding on common sense. If you are in a position of prestige for gods sake act like it.
I agree it was dumb for the paper if they were looking to sell papers to Muslims, but on the other hand should their freedom of expression be held hostage because it might be inflammatory?? Maybe that's the statement they were trying to make??
Making adept editorial decisions does not = holding freedom of expression hostage.
Music and art can only put people's life in danger if people react to it in a violent way....reacting violently should be illegal, NOT the art itself.
I agree 100% however we are talking about doing something inflammatory and releasing it in a newspaper. I mean seriously wht did the paper expect for this, thank you notes?
It was a dumb move for the paper to publish this and it was dumb for violence to have stemmed from it. I'm not siding with the nuts or the paper in this, I'm siding on common sense. If you are in a position of prestige for gods sake act like it.
Thge cartoons were published 4 months ago[/b]. The conflict of today is probably for a large part internal political games (Fatah attacking an EU office after they have been defeated by Hamas etc).
The paper asked for cartoonists to do so,mething with Islam/the prophet because a writer of children books couldn't find any illustrator to do drawings for a book on the life of the prophet. Within Danish society that was an interesting project resulting in one page with some not too offensive cartoons 4 months ago.
This shit is politics and has nothing to do with the original cartoons.
The ones you can see in this thread might be offensive to some but are not offensive enough for this kind of comflict. Ask any sane muslim, I would say.
Shits mad offensive to me and I'm not even Muslim. I can't even begin to imagine how pissed any Muslim, sane or nutjob would be.
Is N.W.A.'s "Fuck Tha Police" offensive?? That was released, on the open market with the sole purpose of being inflammatory.....how many of you that are offended by these cartoons own this LP?? I do.
The ones you can see in this thread might be offensive to some but are not offensive enough for this kind of comflict. Ask any sane muslim, I would say.
Shits mad offensive to me and I'm not even Muslim. I can't even begin to imagine how pissed any Muslim, sane or nutjob would be.
Is N.W.A.'s "Fuck Tha Police" offensive?? That was released, on the open market with the sole purpose of being inflammatory.....how many of you that are offended by these cartoons own this LP?? I do.
OK! I own NWA "Straight Outta Compton".
Now, just like this newspaper, a lot of folks in the record industry have gotten in trouble for the stuff they've put out. Now, whereas I wouldn't have been mad if they yanked the Body Count LP I would've been very mad if they had yanked Straight Outta Compton.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
Straight Outta Compton is a masterpiece and a very important piece of music.
Body Count, like these cartoons, is not an masterful piece of art, is easily forgettable and not important enough to fight such a battle over.
The ones you can see in this thread might be offensive to some but are not offensive enough for this kind of comflict. Ask any sane muslim, I would say.
Shits mad offensive to me and I'm not even Muslim. I can't even begin to imagine how pissed any Muslim, sane or nutjob would be.
Is N.W.A.'s "Fuck Tha Police" offensive?? That was released, on the open market with the sole purpose of being inflammatory.....how many of you that are offended by these cartoons own this LP?? I do.
You just like to argue.
Welcome to Soulstrut[/b]
Seriously though, it wouldn't hurt to concede every now and then. Things are not always so black and white.
______________________________________________
Has anyone thought about how much is about religion and how much is about the relations between people and nations at this time?
The ones you can see in this thread might be offensive to some but are not offensive enough for this kind of comflict. Ask any sane muslim, I would say.
Shits mad offensive to me and I'm not even Muslim. I can't even begin to imagine how pissed any Muslim, sane or nutjob would be.
Is N.W.A.'s "Fuck Tha Police" offensive?? That was released, on the open market with the sole purpose of being inflammatory.....how many of you that are offended by these cartoons own this LP?? I do.
OK! I own NWA "Straight Outta Compton".
Now, just like this newspaper, a lot of folks in the record industry have gotten in trouble for the stuff they've put out. Now, whereas I wouldn't have been mad if they yanked the Body Count LP I would've been very mad if they had yanked Straight Outta Compton.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
Straight Outta Compton is a masterpiece and a very important piece of music.
Body Count, like these cartoons, is not an masterful piece of art, is easily forgettable and not important enough to fight such a battle over.
GET IT?
I get it....if you like the offensive art it's OK...if you don't like it it's not OK.
The ones you can see in this thread might be offensive to some but are not offensive enough for this kind of comflict. Ask any sane muslim, I would say.
Shits mad offensive to me and I'm not even Muslim. I can't even begin to imagine how pissed any Muslim, sane or nutjob would be.
Is N.W.A.'s "Fuck Tha Police" offensive?? That was released, on the open market with the sole purpose of being inflammatory.....how many of you that are offended by these cartoons own this LP?? I do.
Ice T's Cop Killah would better illustrate your point, but as far as Fuck Tha Police goes, they are stating several reasons (we are not here to argue whether they are legitimate or not) why they are against the police. This is a bit more finely expressed than a cartoon which basically amounts to "lol virgins lol terrorists."
The ones you can see in this thread might be offensive to some but are not offensive enough for this kind of comflict. Ask any sane muslim, I would say.
Shits mad offensive to me and I'm not even Muslim. I can't even begin to imagine how pissed any Muslim, sane or nutjob would be.
Is N.W.A.'s "Fuck Tha Police" offensive?? That was released, on the open market with the sole purpose of being inflammatory.....how many of you that are offended by these cartoons own this LP?? I do.
OK! I own NWA "Straight Outta Compton".
Now, just like this newspaper, a lot of folks in the record industry have gotten in trouble for the stuff they've put out. Now, whereas I wouldn't have been mad if they yanked the Body Count LP I would've been very mad if they had yanked Straight Outta Compton.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
Straight Outta Compton is a masterpiece and a very important piece of music.
Body Count, like these cartoons, is not an masterful piece of art, is easily forgettable and not important enough to fight such a battle over.
GET IT?
I get it....if you like the offensive art it's OK...if you don't like it it's not OK.
It's not just me bro... NWA's record is thought to be one of the masterpieces of modern rap music. It's hugely important as a musical piece and as a social piece. I don't have to tell you that.
The ones you can see in this thread might be offensive to some but are not offensive enough for this kind of comflict. Ask any sane muslim, I would say.
Shits mad offensive to me and I'm not even Muslim. I can't even begin to imagine how pissed any Muslim, sane or nutjob would be.
Is N.W.A.'s "Fuck Tha Police" offensive?? That was released, on the open market with the sole purpose of being inflammatory.....how many of you that are offended by these cartoons own this LP?? I do.
You just like to argue.
Welcome to Soulstrut[/b]
Seriously though, it wouldn't hurt to concede every now and then. Things are not always so black and white.
______________________________________________
Has anyone thought about how much is about religion and how much is about the relations between people and nations at this time?
The worst thing about liking to argue is you can't do it by yourself unless you're walking down the street with a earpiece phone so people don't think you're crazy.
Body Count, like these cartoons, is not an masterful piece of art, is easily forgettable and not important enough to fight such a battle over[/b].
GET IT?
But these cartoons are good enough for an eight page thread, right?
Okay, I'm going to bed. As someone said a few posts ago, this is more about politics between states (and withing states) than it is about the cartoons.
Brian, Guzzo and Pay chaeck need to follow some art interpretation class (can be very basic! Just start at the beginning).
The ones you can see in this thread might be offensive to some but are not offensive enough for this kind of comflict. Ask any sane muslim, I would say.
Shits mad offensive to me and I'm not even Muslim. I can't even begin to imagine how pissed any Muslim, sane or nutjob would be.
Is N.W.A.'s "Fuck Tha Police" offensive?? That was released, on the open market with the sole purpose of being inflammatory.....how many of you that are offended by these cartoons own this LP?? I do.
OK! I own NWA "Straight Outta Compton".
Now, just like this newspaper, a lot of folks in the record industry have gotten in trouble for the stuff they've put out. Now, whereas I wouldn't have been mad if they yanked the Body Count LP I would've been very mad if they had yanked Straight Outta Compton.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
Straight Outta Compton is a masterpiece and a very important piece of music.
Body Count, like these cartoons, is not an masterful piece of art, is easily forgettable and not important enough to fight such a battle over.
GET IT?
I get it....if you like the offensive art it's OK...if you don't like it it's not OK.
It's not just me bro... NWA's record is thought to be one of the masterpieces of modern rap music. It's hugely important as a musical piece and as a social piece. I don't have to tell you that.
Are you prepared to defend the cartoons as such?
No, this cartoon isn't artistically important(to me) as SOC, but I'm also not ready to accept some offensive art over other offensive art based on what you or I perceive as it's artistic quality.
I guess because there are devout people in EVERY religion, and there is art that offends the sensibilities of devout people of EVERY religion. Yet no one took this stance when Museums in NYC displayed art that would offend the most devout Christians and there was no violence as a result.
I'm not so sure that the offending artists and museums have not faced threats of violence. I know that many museums are afraid to show controversial art and many shows have been canceled because of protests or threats from Christians.
Dan
The only protests I know of along these lines were based on the fact that the art was being supported by tax payers $$$
Last Temptation of Christ Ellen Brokeback Mountain
The fact is, nobody who is saying the cartoons are offensive did any efford to explain why. Please look at the drwaings that are posted in this thread and tell me what's offensive about them.
OK.
1. Lampooning the holy Prophet in any way. Offensive.
2. Inferring that somehow the Prophet has something to do with or endorses terrorism. Offensive.
3. Putting the holy Prophet at heaven's gate, turning away folks because, hey, there's no more virgins. Offensive.
If you can't see even some remotely offensive angle to these then you are a pretty insensitive person. This sounds like "I WISH BLACKS (OR INSERT ETHNIC GROUP HERE) WOULD JUST GET OVER IT"
And Jesus Christ submerged in Urine??? Virgin Mary smeared with Feces???
Our government PAID for at least one of these!!!
Are we also all on board with censoring music that might offend certain people???
Fucks no. If we can subsidize Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (via tax exemption), then Piss Christ ain't so bad...
I'm helping to make this a 9 pager. Of course I cheated by skipping the first 5.
Roackadel, 3rd Stream and I are on the ACLU side.
Day, Johnny Pay and Brian are on the Guzzo side.
I think cartoonist should be offensive. I like Boondocks and I like R Crumb, they are offensive. I like them.
So a paper ran a cartoon that is offensive to Muslims? So what? It was an editorial cartoon commenting on current events. Agree, disagree with the cartoonist. Point out it's offensive. But don't suggest that the paper should not have run the cartoon.
Just for the record Chris Ofili never did a portrait of the Virgin Mary smeared in shit. He uses elephant dung as part of his palate as a way to recoganize his African heritage. The Virgin Mary was part of a series of African Woman, perhaps that is what people were really upset about. I think we should spend more tax $$$ on artists like him, not less. People who have seen his work do not attack him.
I'm helping to make this a 9 pager. Of course I cheated by skipping the first 5.
Roackadel, 3rd Stream and I are on the ACLU side.
Day, Johnny Pay and Brian are on the Guzzo side.
I think cartoonist should be offensive. I like Boondocks and I like R Crumb, they are offensive. I like them.
So a paper ran a cartoon that is offensive to Muslims? So what? It was an editorial cartoon commenting on current events. Agree, disagree with the cartoonist. Point out it's offensive. But don't suggest that the paper should not have run the cartoon.
Dan
I think the real concern, for me at least, is that certain cartoons depicted Mohammad as a terrorist and murderer. And to me, even though I'm not Muslim, I find that to be beyond the limits of bad taste, venturing into hate. I'm all for creative expression and if it offends some people, sometimes that's necessarry, but to be hateful is another thing entirely.
If a cartoonist in a national newspaper were to draw Christ in a violent manner with swords and bombs I'm sure you'd have an uproar here as well.
And again, FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME - NO ONE[/b] here is condoning the use of violence whatsoever. Those people taking hostages and siezing buildings are crazy and judging from the recent news reports, things are only getting crazier.
We are all standing on shaky ground and I think those artists were irresponsible considering the climate of the world today.
I should have read this post first. I mean what all do we have to talk about after this?
Ok, finally got some time for a long-ass post.
Many of the replies in this thread, except those made by Paycheck, Ness and a few others, bear the signs of gut reaction and lack of first-hand knowledge about what is really going on here. Again, the comfy pillow called the freedom of speech speech is pulled out from the convenient closet. I understand this because there are a lot of subtleties going on here that y'all might not know about.
The general consensus seems to be
1. The cartoons = bad taste.
2. Bad taste not enough to kidnap people and raise hell.
Good. I can get with this for starters, except there has been no kidnappings yet, 'just' a few assaults and a lot of angry demonstrations. And the boycott of course. The problem is that the image in people's heads seems to be:
Innocent, objective newspaper in bubblefuck Denmark prints a few harmless drawings of Muhammad one day
---->>>>
Outrage and violence all over the world the next day
This has not been the course of actions. First, let me break it down to just the bare facts.
---
STEP 1:[/b]
SEPTEMBER 30TH (4 MONTHS AGO!!): Jyllands-Posten prints the 12 drawings of the holy prophet of Islam, Muhammad. The reactions from danish muslims can roughly be split into 3 categories: A: I don't care (very few) B: I find the drawings offensive and/or stupid, but hey - we've got freedom of speech here so I won't do anything about it (many). C: I find the drawings offensive, and I'm going to do something about it (NON-VIOLENT) (many).
STEP 2:[/b]
October 19th: 11 ambassadors from muslim countries ask for a meeting with our prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, asking him to denounce the drawings. The prime minister refuses. ??? November-December: A delegation - representing reaction C - from the Danish Islamic Community consisting of imams and other leading figures from Copenhagen, Odense and Aarhus travel all over the Middle East to talk with politicians, leaders of organizations and religious leaders to rally a protest against Denmark. ??? December 7th: Demonstrations in Pakistan against the prophet drawings and Denmark. ??? December 19th: 22 former danish ambassadors criticize Anders Fogh for not wanting to meet with the muslim ambassadors. ??? December 29th: The foreign secretaries from the League Of Arab States criticize the danish government for their handling of the matter of the prophet drawings. ??? January 1st: Anders Fogh calls for a sober debate in his New Years Speech and the speech is translated to arabic.
STEP 3:[/b]
January 10th: The norwegian christian newspaper Magazinet prints the 12 drawings with permission from Jyllands-Posten. ??? January 26th: The Saudi-arabians begin a boycott of danish products in the supermarkets. The Saudi-Arabian government calls their ambassador in Denmark back home to discuss the drawings. ??? January 26th: Norway apologizes for the prophet drawings. ??? January 27th: The danish dairy product giant Arla reports that their sales in Saudi-Arabia are close to zero. Losses are 1.7 million dollars a day. Medicinal company Novo start to feel the effects of the boycott as well. ??? January 28th: The danish ambassador in Saudi-Arabia, Hans Klingenberg, is interviewed on the american TV-channel AP-TV, criticizing Jyllands-Posten for showing poor judgement and lack of knowledge of Islam. ??? January 28th: The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), representing 57 states, declare that Denmark should have denounced the drawings. ??? January 29th: Libya closes their embassy in Denmark. The danish ambassador in Kuwait is called for a meeting with the government of Kuwait. The Syrian government states that is is "shocked" by the drawings.The danish ambassador in Jordan is called to answer to the foreign secretary of Jordan. ??? January 29th: The discontent with the drawings and demonstrations are increasing on the streets of most of the Middle East, where danish flags and banners with pictures of the danish prime minister are burned in protest of the insult to the holy prophet of Islam. ??? January 30th: Prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen personally denounces the drawings, but does not make an official apology on behalf of the danish government. ??? January 30th: Jyllands-Posten apologizes for having offended muslims with the drawings, but not for printing them.
---
As you can see it took 3 months from the drawings were printed until we reached step 3, which is where it really started to get silly. Why did we even reach step 2? To understand this, you have to read between the lines. First of all, the shit should have been deaded even before the delegation started their round trip in november.
I believe this could have happened if the danish politicians and the newspaper in question would have just communicated in a calm and rational manner with the DK Islamic community from the get-go, instead of being so damn dismissive. Apologies or not, a lot of frustrations could have been defused by just speaking with these people instead of exhibiting that usual smug and condescending attitude that is so prevalent in danish society.
You've got to understand that foreigners, people of foreign descent or just people who look a little different are subject to a sort of passive-aggressive form of racism/discrimination on a daily basis. I'm sorry to say that it's an integrated part of society here. The last 30-40 years Denmark has seen a vast influx of immigrants, refugees, their children and their children's children. My mother and myself are a part of this segment. In this time we've eaten all kinds of shit from the 'real' danes: social, economic and cultural discrimination.
Being called a monkey, a black bastard and all sorts of local words I can't translate to english. Having your religion ridiculed as being 'medieval'. Being ridiculed for even being religious and practicing your religion in everyday life. Having your job application rejected without further consideration if your name was Hassan. Making a simple mistake at work and being told to "go back to the savannah" by your colleague. Being automatically viewed as a potential rapist. Being constantly viewed as when dealing with any kind of authority. Being viewed as part of one big grey mass of 'immigrants' (which in people's minds equals muslims these days), no matter if you are sudanese, pakistani, indonesian or albanian. Being viewed as a cancer in society with nothing to contribute.
I haven't had it that bad because my father is from Denmark and my mother is the kind of person who quickly adapts to new situations - hardworking, never bitter, taking the bad with the good. Plus she comes from a catholic background and not an islamic, which 'helps' a little as well. But I have seen and felt enough for myself to know what feelings are bubbling in the hearts of people, what's bubbling in my own heart. With the emergence of The Danish People's Party 15 years ago (the equivalent of the British National Party or Front National), it's become even more legitimate to speak about 'foreigners' in the most unpleasant and uncivilised manner in danish society, adding fuel to the fire, condoning stupidity and polarization. I'm sick and tired of the "us vs. them" mentality that is so prevalent here today.
People are not talking with each other, they are talking at each other. We can all agree on the readymade freedom of speech yadyada.
But there is also such a thing as using your brain before saying or writing something. Isn't that one of the traits of being civilized? Jyllands-Posten were fanning the fire delibarately. The political climate here does not need this kind of shit.
Negative seeds have been planted in people on all sides for too many years. We need constructive dialogue and positive action, not more mudslinging. The media and politicians have responsibilities. Words and images mean A LOT. We need to stop perpetrating stereotypes. We need to stop hiding behind dandy words about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not an excuse for stupidity.
Now it's become a semi-farce involving the international community, based on part facts, part feelings, part hearsay, part personal interests. A lot of what these people in the arab countries have been told about the issue is not true or overblown, but the man on the street does not know this. That's what happens when things get out of hand. All he knows is that Denmark is now a symbol of westerners taking a big fat dump on his religion/culture.
A lot of people in these countries are governed by one-party systems where the media = the government. They see Jyllands-Posten as the voice of Denmark, the voice of our government. Many of these countries are also repressing their populations, and this issue is being used as a vent for frustrations stemming from this as well. It has given generally frustrated people here and abroad an excuse for overreaction, and my question is "why?". What exactly did Jyllands-Posten accomplish by this? This was not a healthy contribution to a rotten debate. This was not a piece of clever satire, meant to make all sides laugh hearty-har-har, then kiss and make up. They knew damn well what they were just gonna start some shit.
People are now saying things based on hate, anger, spite, ignorance or just plain misinformation. I saw a man from Islamic Jihad on the Gaza Strip saying he wanted an official apology from the Danish Queen. - she has absolutey no political power here! And there has been talk amongst Danes to go burn copies of the Qur'an on the Copenhagen Town Square as an answer to the burning of danish flags in the Middle East.
*SIGH*
When will people ever learn? This is a downward spiral, and I'm sick of it. We could have stopped this a long time ago. And I'm not just talking about 3 months ago, I'm talking about 30 years ago.
---
Sorry for the looong-ass rant. I know y'all don't really get much news from our corner of the world, and I just wanted to get this thread away from the inadequate birds-eye view, back on-topic and let people know the facts and the bigger context of what's going on here.
And I'm kinda sad there hasn't been more europeans adding their 2 cents to this thread. The discussion seems a little amputated with mostly americans/canadians present.
I thought god went out with Santa & the Easter Bunny.
None of this stuff is real. The only place Buddah, Jesus, & Allah will chill out is in a comic strip because they don't exist. God is as real as Beetle Bailey, Charlie Brown, or that pissed off kid from Boondocks.
Brian, Guzzo and Pay chaeck need to follow some art interpretation class (can be very basic! Just start at the beginning).
I now need to take a class to properly determine whether I find something offensive or not. Got it.
In-fucking-credible.
So if the paper's cartoon editor had said, "Hey you know what? This is probably gonna be a real situation. I don't think this is a good idea." Is that censorship? No, that is an (IMO wise) editorial decision. The artist doesn't have a right to be published in a newspaper. The artist has a right to express themselves. The newspaper has a right to publish it (or not). I find the cartoons offensive and I disagree with the decisions of the newspaper. That's all.
I think generique needs to take a class in reading comprehension and perhaps brush up on the concept behind free speech.
Comments
Yelling "Fire" would directly put people's life in danger and that's why it's illegal.
Music and art can only put people's life in danger if people react to it in a violent way....reacting violently should be illegal, NOT the art itself.
1- these cartoons were published 4 months ago in Denmark.
2- Don't underestimate the "devout muslim".
"come on man"
Again: the danish imams touring the middle east carried some very different cartoons. I will be the first one to say these cartoons are crossing a border (I will not post them here because they are truely hateful). The ones you can see in this thread might be offensive to some but are not offensive enough for this kind of comflict. Ask any sane muslim, I would say.
I agree 100% however we are talking about doing something inflammatory and releasing it in a newspaper. I mean seriously wht did the paper expect for this, thank you notes?
It was a dumb move for the paper to publish this and it was dumb for violence to have stemmed from it. I'm not siding with the nuts or the paper in this, I'm siding on common sense. If you are in a position of prestige for gods sake act like it.
I agree it was dumb for the paper if they were looking to sell papers to Muslims, but on the other hand should their freedom of expression be held hostage because it might be inflammatory?? Maybe that's the statement they were trying to make??
Making adept editorial decisions does not = holding freedom of expression hostage.
Jesus, the jingoism.
Thge cartoons were published 4 months ago[/b]. The conflict of today is probably for a large part internal political games (Fatah attacking an EU office after they have been defeated by Hamas etc).
The paper asked for cartoonists to do so,mething with Islam/the prophet because a writer of children books couldn't find any illustrator to do drawings for a book on the life of the prophet. Within Danish society that was an interesting project resulting in one page with some not too offensive cartoons 4 months ago.
This shit is politics and has nothing to do with the original cartoons.
Is N.W.A.'s "Fuck Tha Police" offensive?? That was released, on the open market with the sole purpose of being inflammatory.....how many of you that are offended by these cartoons own this LP?? I do.
OK! I own NWA "Straight Outta Compton".
Now, just like this newspaper, a lot of folks in the record industry have gotten in trouble for the stuff they've put out. Now, whereas I wouldn't have been mad if they yanked the Body Count LP I would've been very mad if they had yanked Straight Outta Compton.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
Straight Outta Compton is a masterpiece and a very important piece of music.
Body Count, like these cartoons, is not an masterful piece of art, is easily forgettable and not important enough to fight such a battle over.
GET IT?
You just like to argue.
Welcome to Soulstrut[/b]
Seriously though, it wouldn't hurt to concede every now and then. Things are not always so black and white.
______________________________________________
Has anyone thought about how much is about religion and how much is about the relations between people and nations at this time?
I'm sure they're inextricably linked.
________________________________________________
Paycheck - "is this thing on?" 3 + 0 =
I get it....if you like the offensive art it's OK...if you don't like it it's not OK.
It's not just me bro... NWA's record is thought to be one of the masterpieces of modern rap music. It's hugely important as a musical piece and as a social piece. I don't have to tell you that.
Are you prepared to defend the cartoons as such?
The worst thing about liking to argue is you can't do it by yourself unless you're walking down the street with a earpiece phone so people don't think you're crazy.
Okay, I'm going to bed. As someone said a few posts ago, this is more about politics between states (and withing states) than it is about the cartoons.
Brian, Guzzo and Pay chaeck need to follow some art interpretation class (can be very basic! Just start at the beginning).
No, this cartoon isn't artistically important(to me) as SOC, but I'm also not ready to accept some offensive art over other offensive art based on what you or I perceive as it's artistic quality.
Doesn't that make any sense at all??
Last Temptation of Christ
Ellen
Brokeback Mountain
Fucks no.
If we can subsidize Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (via tax exemption), then Piss Christ ain't so bad...
Roackadel, 3rd Stream and I are on the ACLU side.
Day, Johnny Pay and Brian are on the Guzzo side.
I think cartoonist should be offensive. I like Boondocks and I like R Crumb, they are offensive. I like them.
So a paper ran a cartoon that is offensive to Muslims? So what? It was an editorial cartoon commenting on current events. Agree, disagree with the cartoonist. Point out it's offensive. But don't suggest that the paper should not have run the cartoon.
Dan
Just for the record Chris Ofili never did a portrait of the Virgin Mary smeared in shit. He uses elephant dung as part of his palate as a way to recoganize his African heritage. The Virgin Mary was part of a series of African Woman, perhaps that is what people were really upset about. I think we should spend more tax $$$ on artists like him, not less. People who have seen his work do not attack him.
Dan
I think the real concern, for me at least, is that certain cartoons depicted Mohammad as a terrorist and murderer. And to me, even though I'm not Muslim, I find that to be beyond the limits of bad taste, venturing into hate. I'm all for creative expression and if it offends some people, sometimes that's necessarry, but to be hateful is another thing entirely.
If a cartoonist in a national newspaper were to draw Christ in a violent manner with swords and bombs I'm sure you'd have an uproar here as well.
And again, FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME - NO ONE[/b] here is condoning the use of violence whatsoever. Those people taking hostages and siezing buildings are crazy and judging from the recent news reports, things are only getting crazier.
We are all standing on shaky ground and I think those artists were irresponsible considering the climate of the world today.
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today
Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...
None of this stuff is real. The only place Buddah, Jesus, & Allah will chill out is in a comic strip because they don't exist. God is as real as Beetle Bailey, Charlie Brown, or that pissed off kid from Boondocks.
In-fucking-credible.
So if the paper's cartoon editor had said, "Hey you know what? This is probably gonna be a real situation. I don't think this is a good idea." Is that censorship? No, that is an (IMO wise) editorial decision. The artist doesn't have a right to be published in a newspaper. The artist has a right to express themselves. The newspaper has a right to publish it (or not). I find the cartoons offensive and I disagree with the decisions of the newspaper. That's all.
I think generique needs to take a class in reading comprehension and perhaps brush up on the concept behind free speech.
Do you think it's also wrong now for some other papers across Europe to now be printing some of these cartoons in some editions?