By the way here is the reason that Jews, Muslims, Quakers and other old belivers do not allow images of G-d.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
This is ampliphed and emphasized repeatedly in the Bible. How so many Christians missed this I do not know. Perhaps they pick and choose what they want to belive.
Nope....that was one line of thought, but the other side of the argument feels that these folks are justified in being as upset as they are and it's us that need to understand them better but it's still no excuse for killing and all that shit.[/b]
The reason why a lot of these things happen is BECAUSE of a lack of understanding.
Nope....that was one line of thought, but the other side of the argument feels that these folks are justified in being as upset as they are and it's us that need to understand them better but it's still no excuse for killing and all that shit.[/b]
The reason why a lot of these things happen is BECAUSE of a lack of understanding.
I agree. Muslims who are offended by these cartoons to the point of using violence or threatening with violence clearly lack understanding. Please take a look a at these cartoons again.
Nope....that was one line of thought, but the other side of the argument feels that these folks are justified in being as upset as they are and it's us that need to understand them better but it's still no excuse for killing and all that shit.[/b]
The reason why a lot of these things happen is BECAUSE of a lack of understanding.
I agree. Muslims who are offended by these cartoons to the point of using violence or threatening with violence clearly lack understanding. Please take a look a at these cartoons again.
I was referring to the lack of understanding of Muslim culture...
Nope....that was one line of thought, but the other side of the argument feels that these folks are justified in being as upset as they are and it's us that need to understand them better but it's still no excuse for killing and all that shit.[/b]
The reason why a lot of these things happen is BECAUSE of a lack of understanding.
I agree. Muslims who are offended by these cartoons to the point of using violence or threatening with violence clearly lack understanding. Please take a look a at these cartoons again.
I was referring to the lack of understanding of Muslim culture...
(in this space there should be a gramelin of Joe Theisman being tackled hard along with the words "Oh Snap")
Nope....that was one line of thought, but the other side of the argument feels that these folks are justified in being as upset as they are and it's us that need to understand them better but it's still no excuse for killing and all that shit.[/b]
The reason why a lot of these things happen is BECAUSE of a lack of understanding.
I agree. Muslims who are offended by these cartoons to the point of using violence or threatening with violence clearly lack understanding. Please take a look a at these cartoons again.
I was referring to the lack of understanding of Muslim culture...
I know. I was being sarcastic. I think most people didn't look at the cartoons in question. Getting hyped up by the affair without looking at the original catoons is
I'm pretty sure most protesters didn't see the catoons. It's a fact that the Danish imams who toured the middle east to stir up the emotions took along a bunch of cartoons that were never published in any mainstream paper. These were cartoons of Mohammed being raped by a dog, depicted as a pig and as a child molestor. The cartoons we are talking about here are nowhere near that and in fact are pretty decent. There are many good cartoonists in the middle east so the public over there is probably aware of the genre and able to read a cartoon properly.
These cartoons are pretty innocent and anyone who is offended by them lacks understanding of what a cartoon is. To say it's prohibited to make a portret of Mohammed is not true. I know there are a lot of classic portrets of Mohammed. Go into a market in Iran and you can buy lots of them. Moreover: these cartoons were published in a Danish newspaper and as I said repeatedly, most of them are smart enough not to take offence with.
To say it's prohibited to make a portret of Mohammed is not true. I know there are a lot of classic portrets of Mohammed. Go into a market in Iran and you can buy lots of them.
It is prohibited within the religion of Islam.
Just because you can buy portraits of him, it does not mean that my previous statement isn't true.
Nope....that was one line of thought, but the other side of the argument feels that these folks are justified in being as upset as they are and it's us that need to understand them better but it's still no excuse for killing and all that shit.[/b]
The reason why a lot of these things happen is BECAUSE of a lack of understanding.
I agree. Muslims who are offended by these cartoons to the point of using violence or threatening with violence clearly lack understanding. Please take a look a at these cartoons again.
I was referring to the lack of understanding of Muslim culture...
Do you think most Muslims understand or want to understand Western culture??
To say it's prohibited to make a portret of Mohammed is not true. I know there are a lot of classic portrets of Mohammed. Go into a market in Iran and you can buy lots of them.
It is prohibited within the religion of Islam.
Just because you can buy portraits of him, it does not mean that my previous statement isn't true.
Dude, check out the difference between sunni and shia Islam...
The fact is, nobody who is saying the cartoons are offensive did any efford to explain why. Please look at the drawings that are posted in this thread and tell me what's offensive about them.
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"
The fact is, nobody who is saying the cartoons are offensive did any efford to explain why. Please look at the drawings that are posted in this thread and tell me what's offensive about them.
I told you why the cartoons are offensive in an earlier post. One shows the profit muhammad with a bomb on his head, he looks like a terrorist and that, plain and simple, is offensive
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"
wow this is scary, once again we are on the same page
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"
wow this is scary, once again we are on the same page
And I understand the far Right loons like Rush and O'Reilly and their followers are pretty upset about this one...
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???
When did I ever say that the Mary wasn't offensive? I don't know what you want out of this thread. When I say something's offensive, you say, "well what about this?" Well, that's offensive too.
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???
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 in the name of. Same goes for the one with Mohammed with a bomb on his head.
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. "Oh, it's not about the Prophet, it just uses the Prophet to get at these crazy extremists." Come on man.
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
When did I ever say that the Mary wasn't offensive? I don't know what you want out of this thread. When I say something's offensive, you say, "well what about this?" Well, that's offensive too.
I guess what I want is to show that art can not and should not be censored based on who it might offend.
And to selectively do so is not right.
If you put music into this equation instead of cartoons it might be easier to understand.
Seriously, this discussion is becoming comical. I posted the thread originally, saying someone fucked up, because A NEWSPAPER published cartoons from AN ARTIST. AN ARTIST has the right to draw, paint, play, sing, perform, or otherwise express whatever they want artistically. A NEWSPAPER has a staff of editors who make decisions as to what is appropriate to publish. I think they made poor decisions and the drama being played out over the globe is perfect evidence of their foolish decision to publish the cartoons in this manner.
If the artist would prefer to make an exhibit of porn with the Prophet's head photoshopped on then that's up to them, and I believe in their right to express themselves. I would think that a museum who hosted any such exhibit (like the Brooklyn Museum Of Art, for example) would be pretty fucking dumb to host such an exhibit. But I am neither an art critic nor a museum curator so my opinion is limited to these words.
Either way, if you can't see the offensiveness of these cartoons then you're a dolt, if you think anyone on this site is advocating violence because of them then you're an even bigger dolt.
Comments
Agreed
I agree. Muslims who are offended by these cartoons to the point of using violence or threatening with violence clearly lack understanding. Please take a look a at these cartoons again.
(in this space there should be a gramelin of Joe Theisman being tackled hard along with the words "Oh Snap")
I know. I was being sarcastic. I think most people didn't look at the cartoons in question. Getting hyped up by the affair without looking at the original catoons is
I'm pretty sure most protesters didn't see the catoons. It's a fact that the Danish imams who toured the middle east to stir up the emotions took along a bunch of cartoons that were never published in any mainstream paper. These were cartoons of Mohammed being raped by a dog, depicted as a pig and as a child molestor. The cartoons we are talking about here are nowhere near that and in fact are pretty decent. There are many good cartoonists in the middle east so the public over there is probably aware of the genre and able to read a cartoon properly.
These cartoons are pretty innocent and anyone who is offended by them lacks understanding of what a cartoon is. To say it's prohibited to make a portret of Mohammed is not true. I know there are a lot of classic portrets of Mohammed. Go into a market in Iran and you can buy lots of them. Moreover: these cartoons were published in a Danish newspaper and as I said repeatedly, most of them are smart enough not to take offence with.
It is prohibited within the religion of Islam.
Just because you can buy portraits of him, it does not mean that my previous statement isn't true.
i dont really know what the fuck is going on in this website but someone is wildin out
http://retecool.com/ffvimg/img/f3660327/101_ea2ff378e5287b3a.gif
Do you think most Muslims understand or want to understand Western culture??
Dude, check out the difference between sunni and shia Islam...
adam thats fucking low
how so. I think its the same thing. both are offensive, both are not meant as compliments and both can cause folks to get very angry.
I'm just trying to put it in a perspective that everyone can understand
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"
I told you why the cartoons are offensive in an earlier post. One shows the profit muhammad with a bomb on his head, he looks like a terrorist and that, plain and simple, is offensive
wow this is scary, once again we are on the same page
this thread is lame
And I understand the far Right loons like Rush and O'Reilly and their followers are pretty upset about this one...
Let's just all kill each other.
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???
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 in the name of. 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. "Oh, it's not about the Prophet, it just uses the Prophet to get at these crazy extremists." Come on man.
no but I ain't going to yell "fire" in a crowded indoor record swap either
I guess what I want is to show that art can not and should not be censored based on who it might offend.
And to selectively do so is not right.
If you put music into this equation instead of cartoons it might be easier to understand.
Seriously, this discussion is becoming comical. I posted the thread originally, saying someone fucked up, because A NEWSPAPER published cartoons from AN ARTIST. AN ARTIST has the right to draw, paint, play, sing, perform, or otherwise express whatever they want artistically. A NEWSPAPER has a staff of editors who make decisions as to what is appropriate to publish. I think they made poor decisions and the drama being played out over the globe is perfect evidence of their foolish decision to publish the cartoons in this manner.
If the artist would prefer to make an exhibit of porn with the Prophet's head photoshopped on then that's up to them, and I believe in their right to express themselves. I would think that a museum who hosted any such exhibit (like the Brooklyn Museum Of Art, for example) would be pretty fucking dumb to host such an exhibit. But I am neither an art critic nor a museum curator so my opinion is limited to these words.
Either way, if you can't see the offensiveness of these cartoons then you're a dolt, if you think anyone on this site is advocating violence because of them then you're an even bigger dolt.