mohammeddance.com
crashcourse
214 Posts
not politically correct, but oh so beautifulmohammeddance.com
crashcourse
214 Posts
Comments
there's also jesusdance.com. explain that one.
I thnk this highly qualifies as "bad taste"
both websites look like they were made in 1994.
HERE WE GO AGAIN
i totally agree with you... but in the initial thread, you reposted the pics!? this whole thing is making me feel like world war III is right around the corner, and that i should smoke that joint tonight, y'know, so that if the apocalypse happens while i'm sleeping, i won't wake up somewhere in the ether going... "fuck!".
well you cited timliness to support your own statement.
and where did i say it wasn't in poor taste? i just want to know why you're not defending christianity with as much vigor as you do other religons.
I'm not sure where exactly timelines come into play here but if the site was set up in 94 it doesnt matter much to me. What does matter is that sometime in the last 4 motnhs they posted up the very same images that are causing controversy and disgust with religious people right now and costing people thier lives. Much like the other thread its about showing some social responsibility.
I am also not defending one religion more than others I am defending human life. If people were killing others, setting fires, and other extreme actions over any other images I'd recommend not adding fuel to that fire either.
Or as our wonderful German female Chancelor once said (then pointing at the not so good relationship between Germany and the US), while standing next D. Rumsfeld: "Yes, no more oil into se fiah"...Rumsfeld looked at here and was going
And here's a link showing that a Muslim newspaper printed a depiction of Muhammad and yet there was no outrage:
http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/2006/02/egyptian-newspaper-pictures-that.html
It was at this point that you should of realized you were typing a large amount of "horse manure".
extremists aren't the only ones upset, but if it makes you feel better to think that bad guys are the only ones who are upset than go ahead and think that.
BTW you do realize that there are Muslims in "the west" too, right?
very well put. as a recovering catholic i never miss an opportunity to hate on religion. didn't mean to start up this debate again. where can i see jesus dance at? its been that kind of day at work.
The case for mocking religion.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Saturday, Feb. 4, 2006, at 4:31 PM ET
As well as being a small masterpiece of inarticulacy and self-abnegation, the statement from the State Department about this week's international Muslim pogrom against the free press was also accidentally accurate.
"Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief."
Thus the hapless Sean McCormack, reading painfully slowly from what was reported as a prepared government statement. How appalling for the country of the First Amendment to be represented by such an administration. What does he mean "unacceptable"? That it should be forbidden? And how abysmal that a "spokesman" cannot distinguish between criticism of a belief system and slander against a people. However, the illiterate McCormack is right in unintentionally comparing racist libels to religious faith. Many people have pointed out that the Arab and Muslim press is replete with anti-Jewish caricature, often of the most lurid and hateful kind. In one way the comparison is hopelessly inexact. These foul items mostly appear in countries where the state decides what is published or broadcast. However, when Muslims republish the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or perpetuate the story of Jewish blood-sacrifice at Passover, they are recycling the fantasies of the Russian Orthodox Christian secret police (in the first instance) and of centuries of Roman Catholic and Lutheran propaganda (in the second). And, when an Israeli politician refers to Palestinians as snakes or pigs or monkeys, it is near to a certainty that he will be a rabbi (most usually Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the leader of the disgraceful Shas party) and will cite Talmudic authority for his racism. For most of human history, religion and bigotry have been two sides of the same coin, and it still shows.
Therefore there is a strong case for saying that the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and those who have reprinted its efforts out of solidarity, are affirming the right to criticize not merely Islam but religion in general. And the Bush administration has no business at all expressing an opinion on that. If it is to say anything, it is constitutionally obliged to uphold the right and no more. You can be sure that the relevant European newspapers have also printed their share of cartoons making fun of nuns and popes and messianic Israeli settlers, and taunting child-raping priests. There was a time when this would not have been possible. But those taboos have been broken.
Which is what taboos are for. Islam makes very large claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophet???who was only another male mammal???is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death.
I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of voice, which as it happens I chance to find "offensive." ( By the way, hasn't the word "offensive" become really offensive lately?) The innate human revulsion against desecration is much older than any monotheism: Its most powerful expression is in the Antigone of Sophocles. It belongs to civilization. I am not asking for the right to slaughter a pig in a synagogue or mosque or to relieve myself on a "holy" book. But I will not be told I can't eat pork, and I will not respect those who burn books on a regular basis. I, too, have strong convictions and beliefs and value the Enlightenment above any priesthood or any sacred fetish-object. It is revolting to me to breathe the same air as wafts from the exhalations of the madrasahs, or the reeking fumes of the suicide-murderers, or the sermons of Billy Graham and Joseph Ratzinger. But these same principles of mine also prevent me from wreaking random violence on the nearest church, or kidnapping a Muslim at random and holding him hostage, or violating diplomatic immunity by attacking the embassy or the envoys of even the most despotic Islamic state, or making a moronic spectacle of myself threatening blood and fire to faraway individuals who may have hurt my feelings. The babyish rumor-fueled tantrums that erupt all the time, especially in the Islamic world, show yet again that faith belongs to the spoiled and selfish childhood of our species.
As it happens, the cartoons themselves are not very brilliant, or very mordant, either. But if Muslims do not want their alleged prophet identified with barbaric acts or adolescent fantasies, they should say publicly that random murder for virgins is not in their religion. And here one runs up against a curious reluctance. ??? In fact, Sunni Muslim leaders can't even seem to condemn the blowing-up of Shiite mosques and funeral processions, which even I would describe as sacrilege. Of course there are many millions of Muslims who do worry about this, and another reason for condemning the idiots at Foggy Bottom is their assumption, dangerous in many ways, that the first lynch mob on the scene is actually the genuine voice of the people. There's an insult to Islam, if you like.
The question of "offensiveness" is easy to decide. First: Suppose that we all agreed to comport ourselves in order to avoid offending the believers? How could we ever be sure that we had taken enough precautions? On Saturday, I appeared on CNN, which was so terrified of reprisal that it "pixilated" the very cartoons that its viewers needed to see. And this ignoble fear in Atlanta, Ga., arose because of an illustration in a small Scandinavian newspaper of which nobody had ever heard before! Is it not clear, then, that those who are determined to be "offended" will discover a provocation somewhere? We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.
Second (and important enough to be insisted upon): Can the discussion be carried on without the threat of violence, or the automatic resort to it? When Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses in 1988, he did so in the hope of forwarding a discussion that was already opening in the Muslim world, between extreme Quranic literalists and those who hoped that the text could be interpreted. We know what his own reward was, and we sometimes forget that the fatwa was directed not just against him but against "all those involved in its publication," which led to the murder of the book's Japanese translator and the near-deaths of another translator and one publisher. I went on Crossfire at one point, to debate some spokesman for outraged faith, and said that we on our side would happily debate the propriety of using holy writ for literary and artistic purposes. But that we would not exchange a word until the person on the other side of the podium had put away his gun. (The menacing Muslim bigmouth on the other side refused to forswear state-sponsored suborning of assassination, and was of course backed up by the Catholic bigot Pat Buchanan.) The same point holds for international relations: There can be no negotiation under duress or under the threat of blackmail and assassination. And civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient. It is depressing to have to restate these obvious precepts, and it is positively outrageous that the administration should have discarded them at the very first sign of a fight.
I didn't mean to imply that only extremists are upset, but I'd be willing to bet it's the extremists that are the ones out there committing violent acts. I realize that there are many Muslims in general that are offended, but most of them aren't reacting by going out and burning down embassies or killing people. There are many Muslim scholars who have written that indeed posting depictions of Muhammad is offensive but that it isn't the Muslim way to react with violence. In fact, that's the complete opposite of the Muslim way and the opposite of how the prophet Muhammed himself reacted to his detractors. I quote:
"The truth is that Islam has always had a sense of humor and has never called for chopping heads as the answer to satirists. Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade. Both Arabic and Persian literature, the two great literatures of Islam, are full of examples of "laughing at religion," at times to the point of irreverence."
And further, somebody actually living in the Mid-East has this to say:
"You know that those cartoons were published for the 1st time months ago and we here in the Middle East have tonnes of jokes about Allah, the prophets and the angels that are way more offensive, funny and obscene than those poorly-made cartoons, yet no one ever got shot for telling one of those jokes or at least we had never seen rallies and protests against those infidel joke-tellers.
What I want to say is that I think the reactions were planned to be exaggerated this time by some Middle Eastern regimes and are not mere public reaction. And I think Syria and Iran have the motives to trigger such reactions in order to get away from the pressures applied by the international community on those regimes."
(You can read more here: http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ )
So again, I say that the people reacting the most strongly to this and are causing most of the problems are those on the fringes of Islam, the extremists. They aren't the only ones upset over the matter but they're the ones using it as an excuse to wreak havoc.
And yes, there are Muslims in the West. Fucking duh. But it's also a lot of Muslims from the West I've seen that have decried what's going on with riots and fires and violence. There are Muslims in Europe who are sticking up for Europe. Not all (not even most) Muslims are fanatical and looking for any reason to explode. I point you here to a piece written by a Muslim living in Europe urging us not to give into the extremists:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398853,00.html
And I also point you here, a website set up by Muslims youth apologizing to the people of Denmark and Norway for the outrageous behavior being exhibited by the Muslim extremists:
http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/
Here's where I think the Pro-Muslim/Anti-Cartoon folks are missing the boat.
I believe it is the duty and obligation of a newspaper and other media outlets to expose and report about criminal and murderous organizations.
Regardless as to whether or not these groups are ethnic based (Mafia = 100% Italian), religious based (KKK = 100% Christian) or racially based (Crips, Bloods, M-13, etc.).
There are countless books, articles, TV shows, movies, and yes even cartoons that expose these criminal groups and the crimes that they commit.
And when one of these groups are exposed, it's not an indictment on the entire group of which they are a sub-set(An anti-KKK cartoon that shows them hanging black people in the name of their perversion of Christianity does not indict all Christians, etc.)
The fear of potentially insulting these larger groups should not and has not prevented the media from exposing the criminal element within said groups.
And cartoons have been used as political and social editorials for over 100 years by every racial, ethnic and religious group on the face of the planet. A quick google search will find Pro-Muslim/Anti-Semetic cartoons that originated in the Middle East and go back as far as 50 years.
These Danish cartoons were no different. They were aimed at a criminal and murderous element that happen to identify themselves as part of a larger religious group and are committing atrocities in the name of their ???God???.
And while the great majority of people within this religion are peace loving, those who are out shouting for ???Death To France???, ???Death To Denmark??? and basically ???Death To Everybody??? are bloodthirsty savages using these cartoons as their ???excuse??? to promote death and murder.
And these are the EXACT people that the cartoons were aimed at.
In my opinion, way before the peace loving majority of the Muslim community need to get upset about these cartoons, they need to get upset about the folks who are committing crimes against humanity in the name of Allah.. And let's face it, these suicide bombs and terror attacks came way before the cartoons did.
And while the people in the West may benefit from understanding why people have such hate and evil in their hearts, they need to stop it from happening first. And recognizing it, exposing it and bringing it out into the light is the first step in stopping it.
I don't feel sorry for the majority of peace loving Muslims because of these cartoons, I feel sorry for them because a rogue group of evil murderers have hi-jacked their religion. And that's where the focus should be.....and thats what these cartoons were focusing on.
And to drive the point home.....
This past week the editor of a Chinese Newspaper was beaten to death by local Police officers after he printed an article that exposed that the local police were involved in graft and other criminal activity.
We can not allow threats and/or acts of violence to censor what is printed or reported in the media.
Wanna put a stop to negative cartoons depicting Allah...stop killing people in his name.
And I'll happily carry the procedure for free... using a spoon.