Cartoons upset Danish Muslims - Page 11 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Hack&Lube · 02-13-2006, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbrown

Oh boys. Who said I'm religious? I'm not. I haven't been to church in 10 years. I have lived common-law for 4 years. Take off your idealogical blinders buddy and stop trying to pigeon hole me as some sort of religious fanatic.

My only point was that blaming this furor on all religion is a facetious argument. I know exactly what atheism is and I do not need your pretty little links to educate myself. Having a major in 20th century history I can tell you that the essentially 'humanist' creed of communism killed many more people than religions ever have. Practising of religion was OUTLAWED.

The problem here is not religion, it is simply human nature. When lead by any 'creed' some people will take it to it's extremes. In muslim's case, that timing is now and by a surprisingly high percentage of their adherants and it is every bit as dangerous as the communist threat was. (if you can remember that far back).

That's what I've been trying to point out to Cheese for about 5 pages of this thread. But he'll always come back claiming that your argument is inferior to his because he can provide more links or something like that. Bringing up a dozen articles from atheist.org to enforce a point is perhaps no better than some guy bringing up articles from natvan.com. Eerie how all American bias propaganda websites all look pretty much the same.

But hey, all in good fun.

Table 5 · 02-13-2006, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Cool. Do you know if it'll be online?

hmmm, let me see if i can find it. it should be there.

Hack&Lube · 02-13-2006, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Table 5

hmmm, let me see if i can find it. it should be there.

Would it be on this page usually?
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/cartoons/index.html

Table 5 · 02-13-2006, 09:19 AM

ok, i found it. the image here is really small, as in reality, the illustration spanned like half a page in between the columns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/op...12qureshi.html

its nothing fancy, just playing off the whole pen is mightier than the (muslim) sword adage.

mbrown · 02-13-2006, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Don't mind Cheese. He usually only reads what he wants to see, and when he does not see what he wants to read, he likes to try and pervert your words into something completely off the wall that suits his argument.

thanks for the heads up

Cowperson · 02-13-2006, 11:30 AM

An ongoing online chat with Doug Saunders, foreign correspondent with the Globe & Mail. Some interesting thoughts:

Doug Saunders: As I understand it, the Koran says nothing about representations of Mohammed — in fact, it portrays him as the sort of guy who might appreciate such things, and who was quite open to self-effacement and criticism. The idea of bans on representation comes from sharia law traditions that emerged much later in Islamic thought, and have never been accepted by all practitioners. Images of Mohammed have often been produced by Muslims without any controversy — Ottoman art is full of them. People in Iran tell me that markets in Tehran often carry loving images of Mohammed. It really is just the extreme interpretations of Islam, like those promoted by Saudi authorities, that put a stress on this. (This doesn't mean that any Muslim in the world would appreciate a nasty depiction of Mohammed, any more than any Christian would appreciate an obscene image of Jesus).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...rk0213/BNStory

EDIT: Since Ireland came up in this thread, he also mentions "Christian terrorism" here, with some interesting mosque attendance numbers:

Our front page story on Saturday was devoted to a Danish leader of the moderate, anti-violent Muslim majority in Europe. As I noted, only between 5 and 20 per cent of Muslims in Europe (depending on which country) even attend a mosque, to say nothing of embracing the extreme views that exist on the far fringes of Islamic belief. I don't think it's fair to repeat the cliché about Islam being a religion of peace — no major religion, if you study its history, is very peaceful or very tolerant. When religion starts being anything other than a personal pastime, it becomes threatening. But for 9 out of 10 Muslims in Europe, it isn't even a personal pastime. Remember, "Christian terrorism" has been a major threat in Europe during recent generations (witness the dozens of terrible IRA bombings in the '70s, '80s and '90s in Britain and the killings of both Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland) — a lot of the same observations apply there.

Cowperson

Cheese · 02-13-2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbrown

thanks for the heads up

That must be a first!

Both you and the snake should read Cows post above...

I don't think it's fair to repeat the cliché about Islam being a religion of peace — no major religion, if you study its history, is very peaceful or very tolerant. When religion starts being anything other than a personal pastime, it becomes threatening.

RougeUnderoos · 02-13-2006, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Table 5

ok, i found it. the image here is really small, as in reality, the illustration spanned like half a page in between the columns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/op...12qureshi.html

its nothing fancy, just playing off the whole pen is mightier than the (muslim) sword adage.

Neato. I didn't know that was a Muslim saying so that's pretty clever. I read a thing in the Globe on the weekend about Muhammad and it said that his own reaction would be something like have Muslim newspapers draw cartoons demonstrating Danish cartoons ignorance of the religion.

It also said he had quite a sense of humor and probably would have laughed at the cartoons.

FireFly · 02-13-2006, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheese

That must be a first!

Both you and the snake should read Cows post above...

I don't think it's fair to repeat the cliché about Islam being a religion of peace — no major religion, if you study its history, is very peaceful or very tolerant. When religion starts being anything other than a personal pastime, it becomes threatening.

Like a lot of things, Cheese. European football has been threatening and deadly. Communism is deadly, quail hunting is threatening. Working in a post office in the US is threatening. Politics is threatening and deadly. The point is that you pick religion out of a lot of things that people can become fanatical about. Why don't we ban sports to ensure there are no more sporting event related riots? Why don't we ban governments so they can't force us into war for a political or economic gain? There are good sides to both of those things, that's why. Just like there is much good that has come out of religion as well.

Cheese · 02-13-2006, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

Like a lot of things, Cheese. European football has been threatening and deadly. Communism is deadly, quail hunting is threatening. Working in a post office in the US is threatening. Politics is threatening and deadly. The point is that you pick religion out of a lot of things that people can become fanatical about. Why don't we ban sports to ensure there are no more sporting event related riots? Why don't we ban governments so they can't force us into war for a political or economic gain? There are good sides to both of those things, that's why. Just like there is much good that has come out of religion as well.

Umm...your not being serious Fly...Hooliganism in Euro Football or Quail Hunting is as threatening and deadly? Try again...Ill pass this one by.

FireFly · 02-13-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheese

Umm...your not being serious Fly...Hooliganism in Euro Football or Quail Hunting is as threatening and deadly? Try again...Ill pass this one by.

That would be you're, and yes, I am being serious. If you want to do away with religion because some people use it as an excuse to hurt others, you have to also do away with everything else that people can use as an excuse to hurt others.

That is your problem with religion, isn't it? People 'create' these things to worship, and then kill in the name of them. Well, people have 'created' sports teams to worship and have also killed in the name of them. Seriously. Should we then ban sports too?

azzarish · 02-13-2006, 05:05 PM

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

Levant states "I don't follow Muslim law, I follow Queen Elizabeth's law.
"I don't follow the Koran, I follow the Canadian Constitution and there are two key parts to the Canadian constitution I'm relying on: one is freedom of expression and the other is cultural diversity (enshrined in) the Constitution."

What is this guy trying to prove that he's going to print the cartoon just for the sake of printing them? So that he can exercise his freedom of speech? What about the fact that the topic has become so controversial that people are getting killed around the world and embassies being destroyed, etc. Muslim or non-muslim we're having to think twice about it. He likes the idea that he's risking further demonstrations here and further animosity just for the sake of his paper and ignoring the fact that he's causing more fury. Or who is he trying to please, the public that have every right to see this in their newspapers whilst thinking he can combat any level of criticism thrown at him.

Bad, very very bad. IMO some things are best left alone if you know they have the potential to cause trouble especially when you have a tense religion involved, just for the sake of human decency and respect if nothing else. Not condoning the appaling behaviour of some muslims around the world but it's time these attention grabbers stopped adding fuel to the fire even if it means forsaking their freedom of speech in this one instance.

Winsor_Pilates · 02-13-2006, 05:12 PM

^^^^
It's Ezra Levant. You don't get much dumber then him. His publishing of the cartoons has nothing to do with freedom of speech. He's clearly trying to shove the situation in the face of those who are offended. A deliberate attempt to add fuel to the fire, and nothing more.

RougeUnderoos · 02-13-2006, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azzarish

What is this guy trying to prove that he's going to print the cartoon just for the sake of printing them?

Levant is an idiot. The smug little puke no doubt thinks he's some sort of renegade, defending free speech against the Muslim hordes.

Reggie Dunlop · 02-13-2006, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezra "Newman" Levant

Added Levant: "I'm not Oprah Winfrey.

No Ezra, but you are still fat and stupid.

I wonder how much he's paying the poor fellers who drew 'em. I read they got $75 originally for their trouble.

The best cheap publicity is free, right Ezra?

RougeUnderoos · 02-13-2006, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

I wonder how much he's paying the poor fellers who drew 'em. I read they got $75 originally for their trouble.

I was wondering about that -- isn't their some sort of copyright or rights fees or something on these illustrations? The original publisher seems to be backpedalling a bit on this so I don't think they'd be granting permission to other newspapers all over the world to run them and make things worse.

Reggie Dunlop · 02-13-2006, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fotze

I'm calling a jihad against Porostocky. In protest I ask you to boycott these famous japanese treats.

What about the other feller? Who drew what? Porostocky is probably safe if he just drew the swirly little background bits.

Reggie Dunlop · 02-13-2006, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I was wondering about that -- isn't their some sort of copyright or rights fees or something on these illustrations?

I don't know Danish copyright laws, so I can't help you there.

I just find it hypocritical to see all these puffed-up publishers righteously championing the lofty Editorial Cartoon when the state of the artform has been in steady decline for the last 15 years due to media consolidation.

Levant can't hire a feller to draw for his little grubby fascist fanboy 'zine so he swipes material from elsewhere. What a hero!

If someone blows his house up I certainly won't be shedding a tear.

Shawnski · 02-13-2006, 06:36 PM

Well perhaps time for a JC vid.... (warning... may make you laugh.)

http://www.punchbaby.com/media/latrz...istMusical.wmv

mbrown · 02-14-2006, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

That would be you're, and yes, I am being serious. If you want to do away with religion because some people use it as an excuse to hurt others, you have to also do away with everything else that people can use as an excuse to hurt others.

That is your problem with religion, isn't it? People 'create' these things to worship, and then kill in the name of them. Well, people have 'created' sports teams to worship and have also killed in the name of them. Seriously. Should we then ban sports too?

Exactly my point. Freedom is the only thing that seperates us from extremes. The more freedom a society has, the less likely for a significant portion of society to go to extremes. Whether this be about religion or anything else. To pick religion out soley as a root for human evil, is shortsighted, ill-conceived and just plain wrong. Clearly Chease has an idealogical axe to grind so there is not much chance to have a constructive conversation with him/her. Ironically, it reminds me of how open minded the extremist Imams are.