Well, see that's the thing - eating halal, praying 5 times a day, making Hajj... those are things that you do if you are a Muslim. Blaspheming against the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is something that no one should do Muslim or not.
Is blaspheming Zeus something one should not do?
Is blaspheming Christ something one should not do?
Buddah?
Vishnu?
Thor and fuckin' Loki?
Father Yod? David Koresh? David Blaine?
I mean, are we talking don't blaspheme Muhammad because there are apparently inherent nasty repercussions, or don't blaspheme any religious deities?
Cos if we can't blaspheme them, how the fuck are we supposed to make the point about how stupid religion is?
I'm all about the societal contract and the Golden Rule, so I'd refrain on those general principles, but I guess I'd like to know where the line is drawn and why.
Well, see that's the thing - eating halal, praying 5 times a day, making Hajj... those are things that you do if you are a Muslim. Blaspheming against the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is something that no one should do Muslim or not.
Is blaspheming Zeus something one should not do?
Is blaspheming Christ something one should not do?
Buddah?
Vishnu?
Thor and fuckin' Loki?
Father Yod? David Koresh? David Blaine?
I mean, are we talking don't blaspheme Muhammad because there are apparently inherent nasty repercussions, or don't blaspheme any religious deities?
Cos if we can't blaspheme them, how the fuck are we supposed to make the point about how stupid religion is?
I'm all about the societal contract and the Golden Rule, so I'd refrain on those general principles, but I guess I'd like to know where the line is drawn and why.
and who will draw that line, think of this as rap, there is is shit load of rap that offends people, you wanna them to pull a walmart and take that shit off the shelves?
I mean, are we talking don't blaspheme Muhammad because there are apparently inherent nasty repercussions
That was the gist of the original post, yes
Cos if we can't blaspheme them, how the fuck are we supposed to make the point about how stupid religion is?
I totally disagree with you on this and while I respect your opinion I am a man of faith and maybe that's why I see things like this as being particularly tasteless
Well, see that's the thing - eating halal, praying 5 times a day, making Hajj... those are things that you do if you are a Muslim. Blaspheming against the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is something that no one should do Muslim or not.
Well, there's the conflict.
It's a tenet of Islam, but adherants of Islam view it as something else--something that should resonate with people outside of the faith.
I didn't want to murder over the Virgin Mary painting in the Brooklyn Museum years ago, but I recognized it as being a) in very bad taste and b) incredibly offensive to those of Christian faith.
Yes, but not wanting to murder (or kidnap, or make threats) is the crucial distinction here.
You thought it was in bad taste, yet you recognized that the transgression was one of taste and not against some higher principle--like the wrongness of inflicting human suffering--that might justify a more forceful reaction.
Wow, is this one of those raer times that JP and I are on the same page?
how many folks here are muslim or spent time learning about the islamic faith?
There are certain things that you just don't do. It may not make sense to a western society like the US but they play by a different set of rules and they may see some of the things we flip out over as pure trivial.
For those not understanding where JP is coming from try to remove your westernized viewpoint from this story and look into some of the reules and traditions of islam.
Yea but what about the fact that these groups use violence to make there point. What does the mighty allah have to say about that????
and who will draw that line, think of this as rap, there is is shit load of rap that offends people, you wanna them to pull a walmart and take that shit off the shelves?
I wish this was more like rap - It would be cool if Ayman al-Zawahri's next tape was a freestyle about Salman "mark-ass" Rushdie.
I mean, are we talking don't blaspheme Muhammad because there are apparently inherent nasty repercussions
That was the gist of the original post, yes
Cos if we can't blaspheme them, how the fuck are we supposed to make the point about how stupid religion is?
I totally disagree with you on this and while I respect your opinion I am a man of faith and maybe that's why I see things like this as being particularly tasteless
I hear ya.
No disrespect intended. I shouldn't have typed "stupid" as an adjective for religion. I waffle often between atheist/agnostic/man of faith. It's easy on a bad day to say everything is random or science-related. Shit ain't always as cut-and-dried when your Grandma dies or you watch your Dad in a coma for a week, though. Call me conflicted, yet clarified as to where you are coming from, JP.
uh... I think to a certain extent we are all in agreement here?
1. The cartoons = bad taste.
2. Bad taste not enough to kidnap people and raise hell.
Absolutely. That about sums it up G**y.
The whole thing is jacked up. Kanye posing as Christ is in bad taste, but I don't wanna kill him for it. It's funny how people think they can diss Christianity openly, but as soon as another belief rolls around they get all butt hurt if a Christian (or anyone else for that matter) says anything negative about that belief. I think I'll just leave it like that.
Wow, is this one of those raer times that JP and I are on the same page?
how many folks here are muslim or spent time learning about the islamic faith?
There are certain things that you just don't do. It may not make sense to a western society like the US but they play by a different set of rules and they may see some of the things we flip out over as pure trivial.
For those not understanding where JP is coming from try to remove your westernized viewpoint from this story and look into some of the reules and traditions of islam.
Yea but what about the fact that these groups use violence to make there point. What does the mighty allah have to say about that????
you're taking a view thats a bit skewed. Muslims make up 30% of the words religious people. Only a fraction of them are out practicing violence. It would be like saying all christians are snakehandlers or abortion doctor murderers.
Violence is not outlawed in the Koran, the "jihad" is a part of the religious ideals of islam. Doesn't mean every muslim is out to create a holy war, and you always got to think about those fanatics (of any religion) that view things differently from the majority
Wow, is this one of those raer times that JP and I are on the same page?
how many folks here are muslim or spent time learning about the islamic faith?
There are certain things that you just don't do. It may not make sense to a western society like the US but they play by a different set of rules and they may see some of the things we flip out over as pure trivial.
For those not understanding where JP is coming from try to remove your westernized viewpoint from this story and look into some of the reules and traditions of islam.
Yea but what about the fact that these groups use violence to make there point. What does the mighty allah have to say about that????
you're taking a view thats a bit skewed. Muslims make up 30% of the words religious people. Only a fraction of them are out practicing violence.
THANK YOU. There is an attitude on this site that the worst of a religion = the majority.... so Christians are all right wing bigoted nutjobs and Muslims are all terrorist hostage taking heathens. That's upsetting to me.
and who will draw that line, think of this as rap, there is is shit load of rap that offends people, you wanna them to pull a walmart and take that shit off the shelves?
exactly.
Censorship is a slippery slope waiting to happen. Today???s heroes are tomorrow???s villains and vice versa. Things can turn very quickly???folks should watch out because the muzzle rules they make can be used against them in the blink of an eye. Political cartoons have been racist from Day One. Look back 100 ??? 150 years ago (not even that far back really) ??? who do you think had a hook nose? Exaggerated lips? Two lines for eyes? A drunkard???s red nose and a sack full of potatoes? This is nothing new and will make for interesting media studies in the next 100 yrs.
As for ???blasphemy??? - why would anyone want to? That???s the best target this Danish paper can come up with ??? a dead guy with an allah complex? (that's the shit that would get me hung back home let me tell you!)
It says a lot about the cartoonist/paper if that???s the calibre of their ???commentary???. That???s hard-hitting shit right there???I can???t wait to see the one with Jesus protesting a women???s clinic with a rifle under his robe! So controversial!
TORONTO (Hollywood Reporter) - Don Imus has been fingered by Canada's TV watchdog for calling Muslims "brainwashed" and "stinking animals" during a 2004 broadcast that aired here on MSNBC Canada.
These are exactly the kinds of statements that get thrown around here on the regular. Recently there was a big scandal involving the politician Louise Frevert from the danish right-wing party Dansk Folkeparti (The Danish People's Party, they average on 10-15% of the votes here). On her website she made several outlandish claims like: "Islam has been a terrorist movement since it's origins" and saying that she wished we could deport them to cheap russian prisons, calling them rapists, medieval, cancer cells and all types of shit.
And this is the everyday level of the debate here. We have many politicians in our parliament following this line of debate. Sometimes I'm just absolutely dumbfounded by the shit they say with a straight face. I'm really not that amazed that people are angry. I've been angry since I was a kid. Fuck these assholes, man. Plenty of times I've wanted to just smack fools upside the head or go apeshit in whatever way. I'm older now and I know how to channel my aggressions in better ways, but I still get pissed off on an almost daily basis.
Wow, is this one of those raer times that JP and I are on the same page?
how many folks here are muslim or spent time learning about the islamic faith?
There are certain things that you just don't do. It may not make sense to a western society like the US but they play by a different set of rules and they may see some of the things we flip out over as pure trivial.
For those not understanding where JP is coming from try to remove your westernized viewpoint from this story and look into some of the reules and traditions of islam.
Yea but what about the fact that these groups use violence to make there point. What does the mighty allah have to say about that????
you're taking a view thats a bit skewed. Muslims make up 30% of the words religious people. Only a fraction of them are out practicing violence.
THANK YOU. There is an attitude on this site that the worst of a religion = the majority.... so Christians are all right wing bigoted nutjobs and Muslims are all terrorist hostage taking heathens. That's upsetting to me.
The thread was about fundamentalists who used force to demand an apology. That's what I'm commenting on.
I know I'm coming into this discussion a bit late but I have to say, I think the Danish newspaper (powers-that-be) excercised extremely poor taste in printing that cartoon of Muhammed.
Initially, I was offended by the cartoon, but after reading everyone's posts I became more and more on the fence in regards to the morality of the issue, until I put myself in the shoes of a Danish citizen who happens to be Muslim. I don't think I would feel very welcomed as a Muslim in my adopted or native country by seeing the holiest prophet of my religion depicted as a terrorist.
How do you think people would react to the New York Times printing a cartoon which portrayed a black American as lazy, dishonest, and uneducated? Do you think it would be dismissed as effortlessly as some of you are dismissing the cartoon of Muhammad? I highly doubt it.
I'm just saying... Simply because you can do something it doesn't mean that you should. I think when you deliberately push someone (in this case; a country's religious minority group) who you know is close to the edge, you should be held partly accountable for the consequences that follow. Why even chance putting something like that in motion? So some ign'ant douchebags can have a laugh or two with their co-workers over at the water cooler?
How do you think people would react to the New York Times printing a cartoon which portrayed a black American as lazy, dishonest, and uneducated? Do you think it would be dismissed as effortlessly as some of you are dismissing the cartoon of Muhammad? I highly doubt it.
But that's a different issue and is, in fact, the reason that I find the cartoons disturbing.
One can care very little about Islam's prohibition on images of Muhammed and still be offended by what is clearly a racist and xenophobic cartoon campaign.
But that's a different issue and is, in fact, the reason that I find the cartoons disturbing.
One can care very little about Islam's prohibition on images of Muhammed and still be offended by what is clearly a racist and xenophobic cartoon campaign.
No, it's not. It's the same exact thing -- both alienate and reinforce a strong stereotype of a certain ethnicity/religious group. I wasn't speaking in regards to the laws of Islam prohibiting the drawing of people. I think it's safe to say that the Danish probably weren't aware of that, and even if they had, I'm sure the cartoon would have still been printed.
I'm just speaking on the principle of publishing something like they did.
I'm just saying... Simply because you can do something it doesn't mean that you should. I think when you deliberately push someone (in this case; a country's religious minority group) who you know is close to the edge, you should be held partly accountable for the consequences that follow. Why even chance putting something like that in motion? So some ign'ant douchebags can have a laugh or two with their co-workers over at the water cooler?
Well put, Mr. Ness. That last sentence is very descriptive of the mentality of the 'common man' here.
This is an interesting discussion that I would like to follow, but I gotta go to bed now. Damn this time difference.
I think when you deliberately push someone (in this case; a country's religious minority group) who you know is close to the edge, you should be held partly accountable for the consequences that follow. Why even chance putting something like that in motion?
Do you think Theo van Gogh was partly responsible for his own murder which was a response to his movie, Submission?
I wasn't speaking in regards to the laws of Islam prohibiting the drawing of people. I think it's safe to say that the Danish probably weren't aware of that, and even if they had, I'm sure the cartoon would have still been printed.
Oh they knew it very well. That was their whole premise: "look at us, we won't let those damn muslims tell us what we can and cannot do!". Defiance without a cause.
I guess I should have elaborated more in my first post, but the reason I thought it was fucked was because European countries have serious issues with their growing Muslim populations, there is not a lot of dialogue, Muslims are largely angry and disaffected, native Europeans for the most part dismissive, and so in light of all that the feature seems to be very irresponsible and foolish.
I don't advocate violence over a cartoon.
I do think that if Islamic governments wished to cut off relations with Denmark that is their right and it is another reason why the feature was irresponsible and foolish.
But that's a different issue and is, in fact, the reason that I find the cartoons disturbing.
One can care very little about Islam's prohibition on images of Muhammed and still be offended by what is clearly a racist and xenophobic cartoon campaign.
No, it's not. It's the same exact thing -- both alienate and reinforce a strong stereotype of a certain ethnicity/religious group.
I'm sorry, but they're two very different things.
One has to do with the basic right that all people have to be free from racist caricature.
The other has more to do with the "right" of a group of people to impose the tenets of their religion on others.
remember when danish was like a raer delicacy? like, that was some fancy houseguest sunday only shit. now look at it. shit's barely a notch above donuts. fucken svenhards 30 pack from costco and it tastes all preservativey with like cheap jams stuck in the middle. danish suck. give me a apple fritter any day of the week.
remember when danish was like a raer delicacy? like, that was some fancy houseguest sunday only shit. now look at it. shit's barely a notch above donuts. fucken svenhards 30 pack from costco and it tastes all preservativey with like cheap jams stuck in the middle. danish suck. give me a apple fritter any day of the week.
But that's a different issue and is, in fact, the reason that I find the cartoons disturbing.
One can care very little about Islam's prohibition on images of Muhammed and still be offended by what is clearly a racist and xenophobic cartoon campaign.
No, it's not. It's the same exact thing -- both alienate and reinforce a strong stereotype of a certain ethnicity/religious group.
I'm sorry, but they're two very different things.
One has to do with the basic right that all people have to be free from racist caricature.
The other has more to do with the "right" of a group of people to impose the tenets of their religion on others.
I'm gonna have to go with Lynn on this one...
"both alienate and reinforce a strong stereotype of a certain ethnicity/religious group"
Comments
Is blaspheming Zeus something one should not do?
Is blaspheming Christ something one should not do?
Buddah?
Vishnu?
Thor and fuckin' Loki?
Father Yod? David Koresh? David Blaine?
I mean, are we talking don't blaspheme Muhammad because there are apparently inherent nasty repercussions, or don't blaspheme any religious deities?
Cos if we can't blaspheme them, how the fuck are we supposed to make the point about how stupid religion is?
I'm all about the societal contract and the Golden Rule, so I'd refrain on those general principles, but I guess I'd like to know where the line is drawn and why.
An AYO for sure...
and who will draw that line, think of this as rap, there is is shit load of rap that offends people, you wanna them to pull a walmart and take that shit off the shelves?
and i get called the conservative
That was the gist of the original post, yes
I totally disagree with you on this and while I respect your opinion I am a man of faith and maybe that's why I see things like this as being particularly tasteless
Yes, but not wanting to murder (or kidnap, or make threats) is the crucial distinction here.
You thought it was in bad taste, yet you recognized that the transgression was one of taste and not against some higher principle--like the wrongness of inflicting human suffering--that might justify a more forceful reaction.
Yea but what about the fact that these groups use violence to make there point. What does the mighty allah have to say about that????
1. The cartoons = bad taste.
2. Bad taste not enough to kidnap people and raise hell.
I wish this was more like rap - It would be cool if Ayman al-Zawahri's next tape was a freestyle about Salman "mark-ass" Rushdie.
I hear ya.
No disrespect intended. I shouldn't have typed "stupid" as an adjective for religion. I waffle often between atheist/agnostic/man of faith. It's easy on a bad day to say everything is random or science-related. Shit ain't always as cut-and-dried when your Grandma dies or you watch your Dad in a coma for a week, though. Call me conflicted, yet clarified as to where you are coming from, JP.
Absolutely. That about sums it up G**y.
The whole thing is jacked up. Kanye posing as Christ is in bad taste, but I don't wanna kill him for it. It's funny how people think they can diss Christianity openly, but as soon as another belief rolls around they get all butt hurt if a Christian (or anyone else for that matter) says anything negative about that belief. I think I'll just leave it like that.
you're taking a view thats a bit skewed. Muslims make up 30% of the words religious people. Only a fraction of them are out practicing violence. It would be like saying all christians are snakehandlers or abortion doctor murderers.
Violence is not outlawed in the Koran, the "jihad" is a part of the religious ideals of islam. Doesn't mean every muslim is out to create a holy war, and you always got to think about those fanatics (of any religion) that view things differently from the majority
THANK YOU. There is an attitude on this site that the worst of a religion = the majority.... so Christians are all right wing bigoted nutjobs and Muslims are all terrorist hostage taking heathens. That's upsetting to me.
exactly.
Censorship is a slippery slope waiting to happen. Today???s heroes are tomorrow???s villains and vice versa. Things can turn very quickly???folks should watch out because the muzzle rules they make can be used against them in the blink of an eye. Political cartoons have been racist from Day One. Look back 100 ??? 150 years ago (not even that far back really) ??? who do you think had a hook nose? Exaggerated lips? Two lines for eyes? A drunkard???s red nose and a sack full of potatoes? This is nothing new and will make for interesting media studies in the next 100 yrs.
As for ???blasphemy??? - why would anyone want to? That???s the best target this Danish paper can come up with ??? a dead guy with an allah complex? (that's the shit that would get me hung back home let me tell you!)
It says a lot about the cartoonist/paper if that???s the calibre of their ???commentary???. That???s hard-hitting shit right there???I can???t wait to see the one with Jesus protesting a women???s clinic with a rifle under his robe! So controversial!
These are exactly the kinds of statements that get thrown around here on the regular. Recently there was a big scandal involving the politician Louise Frevert from the danish right-wing party Dansk Folkeparti (The Danish People's Party, they average on 10-15% of the votes here). On her website she made several outlandish claims like: "Islam has been a terrorist movement since it's origins" and saying that she wished we could deport them to cheap russian prisons, calling them rapists, medieval, cancer cells and all types of shit.
And this is the everyday level of the debate here. We have many politicians in our parliament following this line of debate. Sometimes I'm just absolutely dumbfounded by the shit they say with a straight face. I'm really not that amazed that people are angry. I've been angry since I was a kid. Fuck these assholes, man. Plenty of times I've wanted to just smack fools upside the head or go apeshit in whatever way. I'm older now and I know how to channel my aggressions in better ways, but I still get pissed off on an almost daily basis.
The thread was about fundamentalists who used force to demand an apology. That's what I'm commenting on.
Initially, I was offended by the cartoon, but after reading everyone's posts I became more and more on the fence in regards to the morality of the issue, until I put myself in the shoes of a Danish citizen who happens to be Muslim. I don't think I would feel very welcomed as a Muslim in my adopted or native country by seeing the holiest prophet of my religion depicted as a terrorist.
How do you think people would react to the New York Times printing a cartoon which portrayed a black American as lazy, dishonest, and uneducated? Do you think it would be dismissed as effortlessly as some of you are dismissing the cartoon of Muhammad? I highly doubt it.
I'm just saying... Simply because you can do something it doesn't mean that you should. I think when you deliberately push someone (in this case; a country's religious minority group) who you know is close to the edge, you should be held partly accountable for the consequences that follow. Why even chance putting something like that in motion? So some ign'ant douchebags can have a laugh or two with their co-workers over at the water cooler?
Hardly seems worth it. Just my own $0.02 though.
But that's a different issue and is, in fact, the reason that I find the cartoons disturbing.
One can care very little about Islam's prohibition on images of Muhammed and still be offended by what is clearly a racist and xenophobic cartoon campaign.
No, it's not. It's the same exact thing -- both alienate and reinforce a strong stereotype of a certain ethnicity/religious group. I wasn't speaking in regards to the laws of Islam prohibiting the drawing of people. I think it's safe to say that the Danish probably weren't aware of that, and even if they had, I'm sure the cartoon would have still been printed.
I'm just speaking on the principle of publishing something like they did.
Well put, Mr. Ness. That last sentence is very descriptive of the mentality of the 'common man' here.
This is an interesting discussion that I would like to follow, but I gotta go to bed now. Damn this time difference.
Do you think Theo van Gogh was partly responsible for his own murder which was a response to his movie, Submission?
Oh they knew it very well. That was their whole premise: "look at us, we won't let those damn muslims tell us what we can and cannot do!". Defiance without a cause.
I don't advocate violence over a cartoon.
I do think that if Islamic governments wished to cut off relations with Denmark that is their right and it is another reason why the feature was irresponsible and foolish.
I'm sorry, but they're two very different things.
One has to do with the basic right that all people have to be free from racist caricature.
The other has more to do with the "right" of a group of people to impose the tenets of their religion on others.
I'm gonna have to go with Lynn on this one...
"both alienate and reinforce a strong stereotype of a certain ethnicity/religious group"