Cartoons upset Danish Muslims

[Cowperson]

Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Charles Krauthammer, whom I believe has a Montreal background in his formative years, writing in the Washington Post today:

What passes for moderation in the Islamic community -- "I share your rage but don't torch that embassy" -- is nothing of the sort. It is simply a cynical way to endorse the goals of the mob without endorsing its means. It is fraudulent because, while pretending to uphold the principle of religious sensitivity, it is interested only in this instance of religious insensitivity.

Have any of these "moderates" ever protested the grotesque caricatures of Christians and, most especially, Jews that are broadcast throughout the Middle East on a daily basis? The sermons on Palestinian TV that refer to Jews as the sons of pigs and monkeys? The Syrian prime-time TV series that shows rabbis slaughtering a gentile boy to ritually consume his blood? The 41-part (!) series on Egyptian TV based on that anti-Semitic czarist forgery (and inspiration of the Nazis), "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," showing the Jews to be engaged in a century-old conspiracy to control the world?

A true Muslim moderate is one who protests desecrations of all faiths. Those who don't are not moderates but hypocrites, opportunists and agents for the rioters . . . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020901434.html

And Washington Post columnist David Ignatius compares the Muslim cartoon controversy, and newspapers refusing to carry the cartoons, to use of the "n word" in America.

Hoping to understand this blood-knot of rage and intolerance, I called Randall Kennedy, a prominent African American professor of law at Harvard University. He is the author of a 2002 book that explores the intense emotions aroused by the n-word, which he actually dares to spell out in the book's title. He says he's not surprised that a cartoon, like a taboo word, can become a focus for rage. For African Americans, he explains, "there are all sorts of indignities and insults, but they're momentary and ambiguous." But when white people say the hateful word, "it crystallizes something that's often hard to discern."

"When people feel they're being disrespected, they respond in all sorts of ways, including very self-destructive ways," Kennedy observes. That said, he finds the Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons unacceptable -- just as he thinks people overreact to the n-word. "Are we going to bleep out Richard Pryor's album? Are we going to scratch out every reference to the word in 'Huckleberry Finn'? I would say with respect that's what is happening here with the reaction to the cartoons."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020901424.html

Cowperson

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by fotze

There was a hate crime in kensington (Calgary) yesterday as the cartoons were put up oin light posts. - Can't find the link

Calling it a hate crime might be rather extreme... a hate crime would be stapling these pictures to a beaten muslim, not stapling them on a public forum or taping them to a lamp post. It could very easily be people standing up for free speech and people who, like many of us, are rather annoyed by the hypocritical and extremist response these cartoons have received.

Personally I find this whole scenario disgusting, and I think it should be a cold day in hell when our free and (mostly) secular society is dictated to by a bunch of intolerant, religious extremists, many of which feel that making fun of the slaughter of millions of jews is turnabout for a cartoon depicting their prophet. Even the moderates seem to have a very arrogant view of the situation, that free speech is great, so long as its not them.

I've tried to keep quiet about this, but its just getting ridiculous.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Calling it a hate crime might be rather extreme... it could very easily be people standing up for free speech and people who, like many of us, are rather annoyed by the hypocritical and extremist response these cartoons have received.

Personally I find this whole scenario disgusting, and I think it should be a cold day in hell when our free and (mostly) secular society is dictated to by a bunch of intolerant, religious extremists, many of which feel that making fun of the slaughter of millions of jews is turnabout for a cartoon depicting their prophet. Even the moderates seem to have a very arrogant view of the situation, that free speech is great, so long as its not them.

I've tried to keep quiet about this, but its just getting ridiculous.

Glad to see you speak out T'Ball....Im sure there are many others who have never stepped off the edge that might now. The more the merrier.
Really what is so different about this particular religious event compared to others? Media attention?
Hypocrisy has always been a buzzword directly linked to any of the mainstream religions. Its rather hilarious that a cartoon will play a factor on many choosing to leave the Theist corner.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

It could very easily be people standing up for free speech and people who, like many of us, are rather annoyed by the hypocritical and extremist response these cartoons have received.

It's not standing up for free speech to anonymously tape up a picture that serves no purpose other than to offend people. It's no different than taping up sheets with the word **** in big bold letters all over the community.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's not standing up for free speech to anonymously tape up a picture that serves no purpose other than to offend people. It's no different than taping up sheets with the word **** in big bold letters all over the community.

Would you put your name on the picture so some radicals can come track you down?

The purpose could easily be to inform. To show the general public what's causing all the fuss, since to most people, its just a cartoon.

To answer some of your queries, Cheese... I've always believed religion makes an excellent moral code, to guide people's lives and help them to be good (and tolerant) people. I still defend theism... so long as its a tool, not the means to live ones life. When religion fails to improve people's lives and their sensibilities, it is no longer productive. Whether or not Jesus or Mohammed actually existed isn't important, what they said wasn't even that important, its the ideals they represented that count, and people, Islamic, Christian, Jewish or many others have lost track of that. This incident is particularly troubling because its the most intolerant thing I have ever seen.

This is equivalent to Christians reacting violently and angrily at Hindus because they believe in many gods and published pictures of them. Hey, the first commandment is very clearly thou shall only have one God. Just as important as not making images of Mohammed. Hindus are clearly "mocking" christian values of only one god. Yet they demand respect and tolerance of everyone else.

[RougeUnderoos]

Would you put your name on the picture so some radicals can come track you down?

I wouldn't put up the stupid poster in the first place, but if I thought I was doing something noble and making a political statement about free speech then I'd have the balls to put my name on it.

If I was into putting up posters just to offend certain segments of the population then I probably would leave my name off of them like these guys did.

The purpose could easily be to inform. To show the general public what's causing all the fuss, since to most people, its just a cartoon.

You gotta be effing kidding. A public service announcement? Sure it is. And if I put up my sign that says "****", I'm giving everyone a spelling lesson.

This is equivalent to Christians reacting violently and angrily at Hindus because they believe in many gods and published pictures of them. Hey, the first commandment is very clearly thou shall only have one God. Just as important as not making images of Mohammed. Hindus are clearly "mocking" christian values of only one god. Yet they demand respect and tolerance of everyone else.
Couldn't you also say that Christians are mocking Hindus because Christians don't believe in multiple gods? Why yes you could, if you actually believe this line of logic.

The mere act of believing in another religion does not = mockery. I don't believe in this Christian stuff, so does that mean I'm mocking you?

[Cowperson]

And if I put up my sign that says "****", I'm giving everyone a spelling lesson.

The word filter automatically puts that sentence into the irony thread.

Another day, more riots.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11269770/

Cowperson

[Thunderball]

Would you put your name on the picture so some radicals can come track you down?

I wouldn't put up the stupid poster in the first place, but if I thought I was doing something noble and making a political statement about free speech then I'd have the balls to put my name on it.

If I was into putting up posters just to offend certain segments of the population then I probably would leave my name off of them like these guys did.

I can't speak for their motive, but I wouldn't be quick to label it a hate crime, and no, I wouldn't expect someone to put their name on a public sign unless they wanted people to contact them.


The purpose could easily be to inform. To show the general public what's causing all the fuss, since to most people, its just a cartoon.

You gotta be effing kidding. A public service announcement? Sure it is. And if I put up my sign that says "****", I'm giving everyone a spelling lesson.

Sorry, sir... but I'm not kidding. Many people have no idea why a cartoon could spark controversy. So, in the spirit of free speech... why not display it in public and let the people decide. Putting up a sign that says "****" or whatever is completely different and irrelevant to the discussion. "****" isn't a largely hidden current affair, the cartoon is.

This is equivalent to Christians reacting violently and angrily at Hindus because they believe in many gods and published pictures of them. Hey, the first commandment is very clearly thou shall only have one God. Just as important as not making images of Mohammed. Hindus are clearly "mocking" christian values of only one god. Yet they demand respect and tolerance of everyone else.
Couldn't you also say that Christians are mocking Hindus because Christians don't believe in multiple gods? Why yes you could, if you actually believe this line of logic.

You sure could. Christians were just one example. The thing is, you don't see them grappling over each other cause each proudly depict their belief. This is simply looking for a fight.

The mere act of believing in another religion does not = mockery. I don't believe in this Christian stuff, so does that mean I'm mocking you?

Well, I'm far from any kind of devout Christian, so you wouldn't be mocking me. Even if I was, every single Christian belief has at one time been mocked, ridiculed, or downplayed, and yet you don't see this kind of blood fever that you see in many Muslims. Back to the point, clearly in this instance, not believing in another religion = mockery. Since most do not believe in Islam, it is fair game to us to make pictures of Mohammed, since we are not bound by their laws.

[RougeUnderoos]

I can't speak for their motive, but I wouldn't be quick to label it a hate crime, and no, I wouldn't expect someone to put their name on a public sign unless they wanted people to contact them.

I didn't label it a hate crime and don't think it is. I do think it is some clown's way of offending people for the purposes of offending them and nothing more. He's the real world version of a messageboard troll. Not adding anything to the discussion and just trying to **** people off. Real clever. Nice "free speech" message there.
Sorry, sir... but I'm not kidding. Many people have no idea why a cartoon could spark controversy. So, in the spirit of free speech... why not display it in public and let the people decide. Putting up a sign that says "****" or whatever is completely different and irrelevant to the discussion. "****" isn't a largely hidden current affair, the cartoon is.


This is hardly a hidden affair and I don't for one second there is some good samaritan out there thinking he's doing everyone a favor by slapping up pictures of Muhammad with a bomb on his head.

If there were another guy walking around town putting up posters of Jesus riding a cruise missile with a wild look in his eye, or passing out flyers depicting the Virgin Mary doing something not so virginal, would you consider that possibly "educational" as well?

I wouldn't. I'd think that whoever is doing that is just trying to offend people, make people angry, just for the hell of it, or maybe because he just doesn't like Christians and wants to hurt them. Sort of like signs that say nothing more than "****" -- useless largely, but offensive to some.

[RedMan12]

On top of this the Offical forum at CalgaryFlames.com was shut down because of a thread with this exact title. Its sad that something like this has caused so much violence and out rage. I think they are over reacting because of this. I think they should be offended but rioting and destroying things is even worse then some cartoons. I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

If there were another guy walking around town putting up posters of Jesus riding a cruise missile with a wild look in his eye, or passing out flyers depicting the Virgin Mary doing something not so virginal, would you consider that possibly "educational" as well?

I wouldn't. I'd think that whoever is doing that is just trying to offend people, make people angry, just for the hell of it, or maybe because he just doesn't like Christians and wants to hurt them. Sort of like signs that say nothing more than "****" -- useless largely, but offensive to some.

And yet that's what happened to the Muslims. They were insulted, and no one apologized. They asked for an apology first, and were not given one. Freedom of speech? Sure, but it's still offensive, and you can't just publicize offensive material without expecting some sort of backlash.

To think that this could all have been avoided by a simple apology. I'm not saying the Muslims are right, but how right were the original publishers in their refusal to apologize?

The quote in my sig says that without the freedom to offend, the freedom of expression does not exist. Rushdie was right. However, in this politically correct world, we need to realize we don't have the right to offend without facing the consequences of doing so.

[swat]

First of all... I am a Muslim who just happens to like hockey. That is why I am here. I generally lurk in hockey forums without posting, as I am still not knowledgeable enough to contribute meaningfully. Anyway, those who wish can now talk to a real person instead of having to talk about "them", "why do they...", "why don't they...".

I won't preted for a minute that I speak for all 1.3 billion people (give or take a 100 mil), but I like when Off-topic threads like this one turn into dialogue rather than... well, you know. ALSO, for my part, I promise not to burn any flags, embassies or effigies, throw rocks, or chant stuff.


So, I will start by giving my answers to the FAQs:


Why do you get worked up about the cartoons?


It is not really just about the cartoons, regardless of what some people on both sides want you to believe.


The extremists in some of the protests want to recruit people for their cause. They don't need some complex tolerance-discourse mumbo-jumbo. Lesson in extremism 101: Don't waste your time on the educated people. Appeal to the poor, ignorant, and discontent first. The message is a really simple one--they broke our taboo by insulting our Prophet, let's get them.


The extremists on the European (and Western, in general) side got a perfect tool to recruit people for their xenophobic (and other) agendas. "Look how violent these Muslims are?" Speaking of violent protest, if you do the math [the formula for each country is (number of protesters)/(total Muslim population)] you get a pretty good picture of the extent of the violent tendencies.


So what is it about if not just the cartoons?


It’s about stereotyping and prejudice. A cartoon depicting a founder of a major religion as a terrorist implies that his followers are terrorists. Someone here already posted a link to article about that. “All Muslims are terrorists” (in this country) is as bad as “All ____ are lazy” or “all ______ are drunkards” Fill in the blank with a minority of choice. The often overused quote (by Oliver Wendell Holmes, I think) certainly applies here: "Watch your thoughts, for they become words, choose your words, for they become actions.[…]“


It’s about being labelled a terrorist and maybe getting a one-way ticket to Guantanamo Bay one day. Or things can escalate further and we will have the return of internment camps. Remember those from your history class?


But Muslims are so hypocritical--they are demanding the rights they wouldn't give to others!


Those who “give” rights are governments and courts the last time I checked. You don’t think I wish I could summarily “give” equal rights to minorities in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or any other Muslim country? The highly corrupt Middle Eastern (and other) regimes undoubtedly lead the world in human rights violations. But some perceive that somehow ALL 1.3 billion of us gave those governments, as if we were a part of some Borg-like collective consciousness, the mandates to abuse and oppress others.

Have you noticed that people in most of those countries react the same way whatever the issue at hand? Rally, burn flags and effigies, chant “Death to Israel!” Rinse and repeat. This happens in both Iran and in Pakistan, the ally of the West. And yes, many of us Muslims are outraged by the random Middle Eastern accusations against Israel and this idiotic need to hurt people by denying Holocaust.


You can’t dictate us what to do, it’s your religion not ours!

True enough; I (and many others) would never dream of that. That is why I wouldn’t ask you to stop serving pork in restaurants. That is why I don’t demand to get Fridays off instead of Sundays, nor do I want to force hospitals to circumcise your boys. Do I protest food advertisements in daytime during Ramadan? Or do I advocate/practice polygamy? (Incidentally, there is a polygamous sect in Western Canada, but it’s not quite Muslim, is it?) Do any other Muslims you know of in Canada demand any of the above? If they do, please post their contact info, I would like to set them straight.


By the same token, one could say that Christians cannot dictate to the public, including to those Christians who are not practicing. But if someone depicted Mary as a prostitute and Jesus as a child whose father was some Roman soldier, shouldn’t that give Christians the right to be outraged? OF COURSE IT SHOULD. It is an unnecessary insult, with no value as social commentary. If you portray Moses as a covetous, money-grabbing stereotype of a Jew, should the Jews be outraged? OF COURSE. And some of them can tell you what German free speech cartoons felt like in the ’30s and ‘40s.


Finally, a few comments on some of the things I read so far in this thread.


Cheese,
Of the countries and regions you or someone else copied from Michael Savage’s web site as having ongoing Muslim battles, I can only speak about one (Kosovo) and I can tell you that that one has nothing to do with religion. What is conveniently left out is that Albanians are either Muslims or Catholics, while Serbs are Orthodox Christians. Savage also fails to mention at least 25 years of background events that led to all that. His snuff films and images fail to include many of the things I have seen and had done to me. I still don’t blame all Christians for it. If you’d care to see some of it find the documentary “Death of Yugoslavia” or check out the book by Ron Haviv Blood and Honey. Both are published by the Western media and journalists. Here is a taste of it from MSNBC (please note that clicking on some of the links will take you to disturbing images) : http://msnbc.com/news/484122.asp?b=hi


A few random thoughts that may or may not contribute to a meaningful discussion:

• Why was Marilyn Manson’s concert cancelled in Calgary in 1997?
• Anyone remember Rodney King riots?
• Was David Ahenakew exercising free speech?

[RedMan12]

thanks for your input. I hate wars that are caused my religion. This is why I am not religious. I want people to get along. I dont even want to argue if the cartoons are right or wrong. They are very wrong. Muslims should be upset over it. I don't think it should have caused them many problems though.

[Shawnski]

First of all... I am Muslim who just happens to like hockey. That is why I am here. I generally lurk in hockey forums without posting, as I am still not knowledgeable enough to contribute meaningfully.

Three points here. One, welcome aboard. Two, your insight will be interesting. Three, as far as becoming knowledgeable about hockey, this is a great site to read. Consider it the Harvard of the NHL.

A few comments on your post...

Speaking of violent protest, if you do the math [the formula for each country is (number of protesters)/(total Muslim population)] you get a pretty good picture of the extent of the violent tendencies.

First, you might reconsider this formula. Even with the high number of Muslim in the world, the percentage you are indicating by your logic would still, to me, lead to a higher extent of "violent tendencies" within that particular community.

Not only that, but your math in this case only reflects the percentage of those in the Muslim community that are a problem (vis-a-vis other groups), not the total number for either side. Although noted as a percentage, the overall impact is a HUGE difference in the overall number of, well how should we put it... shyte disturbers?

A cartoon depicting a founder of a major religion as a terrorist implies that his followers are terrorists.

Now this point is interesting. The Prophet is not to be depicted, but the cartoon of the "bomb head" is assumed to be him. Why that assumption? What likeliness would it be compared to to indicate to the world that the satirical cartoon was Muhammed himself? What do Muslims use as a baseline to say that it was him and not simply a (granted) stereotypical portrait of an Arab? Portraying an Arab that way is bad, no question, but to assume the portrait is the Prophet? How did that leap occur?

But some perceive that somehow ALL 1.3 billion of us gave those governments, as if we were a part of some Borg-like collective consciousness, the mandates to abuse and oppress others.

Until I see a uprising within the Muslim community to quell the fundamentalist wing that portrays your religion so poorly worldwide, then perhaps the Borg analogy is warranted. Perhaps "resistance is futile" IS the pervasive thought within peaceful Muslims. To date, I have not seen enough action within your community to perceive events otherwise. Thus at this point, the guilty by association may be warranted. Define yourselves by eradicating that element of your religion that does nothing but harm it. No?

Just my questions/thoughts for now.

Thank you for reading.

[moon]

Originally Posted by FireFly

To think that this could all have been avoided by a simple apology. I'm not saying the Muslims are right, but how right were the original publishers in their refusal to apologize?

They were 100% right in not issuing an apology. They printed something that some people found offensive, too bad for those folks. If they don't like it then don't read or complain, but the Newspaper did the right thing in not issuing an apology.

[moon]

Originally Posted by fotze

There was a hate crime in kensington (Calgary) yesterday as the cartoons were put up oin light posts. - Can't find the link

I am confused is the hate crime that soemone put posters up or did the hate crime result because of the posters being put up?

Because I can't see how putting up posters that some overly sensitive, pain-in-the asses find offensive is a hate crime. I assumed that someone was attakced because of the posters but reading subsequent posts it would seem that putting up the posters is now considered a hate crime.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by FireFly

And yet that's what happened to the Muslims. They were insulted, and no one apologized. They asked for an apology first, and were not given one. Freedom of speech? Sure, but it's still offensive, and you can't just publicize offensive material without expecting some sort of backlash.

To think that this could all have been avoided by a simple apology. I'm not saying the Muslims are right, but how right were the original publishers in their refusal to apologize?

The quote in my sig says that without the freedom to offend, the freedom of expression does not exist. Rushdie was right. However, in this politically correct world, we need to realize we don't have the right to offend without facing the consequences of doing so.

Actually, apologies have been raining out of the sky on this, including this one today:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...4E83209050.htm

I'm not sure if they should be apologizing - but a number have. Maybe western populations and media should hold out and wait for apologies from Muslim media over the huge number of incredibly disturbing lampoons we see of various Christian and Jewish issues, stuff that has been going on for 50 years.

All those apologies have been ignored. Don't say that apologies haven't been offered. Its categorically untrue.

Second, it is ABSOLUTELY not the business of any government - Norway, Netherlands, etc - to apologize for what a free press has done as is demanded by Muslim protesters and rioters. Such an apology from any government would be way over the line for what is due and for what you, with them acting as your representatives, are responsible for.

Third, this is just another argument as to why the church and state should be separate entities . . . . this was a zero issue in Muslim nations for MONTHS until Muslim governments made it an issue.

Fourth, John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia, had the best line today when he said the outrage around this is "totally disproportionate" to any offence that might have been taken.

Nice post Swat. Welcome aboard. I don't agree with all of it but its good to see your perspective. Keep 'em coming.

Cowperson

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Actually, apologies have been raining out of the sky on this, including this one today:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...4E83209050.htm

I'm not sure if they should be apologizing - but a number have. Maybe western populations and media should hold out and wait for apologies from Muslim media over the huge number of incredibly disturbing lampoons we see of various Christian and Jewish issues, stuff that has been going on for 50 years.

All those apologies have been ignored. Don't say that apologies haven't been offered. Its categorically untrue.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Those who published the cartoons did not apologize. The person who drew them, I do not believe apologized. I don't think governments should have to apologize either. If the person who drew the cartoons might have just said, 'I'm sorry, I did not realize that it would cause such offense,' this may not have happened at all.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Those who published the cartoons did not apologize. The person who drew them, I do not believe apologized. I don't think governments should have to apologize either. If the person who drew the cartoons might have just said, 'I'm sorry, I did not realize that it would cause such offense,' this may not have happened at all.

It is not just the cartoons that were published that sparked this.... it was ones that were NOT.

And think about it. Whom in the Muslim world that are going balistic over this have even seen the pictures? They wouldn't have been published in THEIR area. It is word of mouth only.

There was a very interesting article in the Globe and Mail today. Will try to find a link to it. But in a nutshell, the person interviewed was not as concerned about "bomb head" as he was the one about the "Prophet" sodemizing another man. THAT was never published... anywhere. It was only included in the Akkari handout I referenced earlier. Hate mail of some sorts.

That Akkari fellow has really played his cards stupidly. And many people have died because of it. HE is the linchpin in this problem.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by moon

They were 100% right in not issuing an apology. They printed something that some people found offensive, too bad for those folks. If they don't like it then don't read or complain, but the Newspaper did the right thing in not issuing an apology.

When you insult someone, and refuse to take it back, do you not risk being punched in the face for it? And then to have a hundred other people issue the same insult simply because the other person asked for the apology in the first place?

Let's say I'm standing in a stadium full of ugly people and I get on the loudspeaker and say 'you're all a bunch of fat, ugly, wastes of skin!' You suppose they might ask for an apology? Let's say they do. Then, if 100 other people got up on the podium and said 'it's our right to call you fat, ugly wastes of skin!' Do you suggest the ugly people just go to a different stadium? Or do you figure they're going to be ****ed and start swinging?

Now, if I had just said, 'I'm sorry I called you names.' no one else would have gotten up on the podium to say anything else and the situation would have been diffused. Is it my right to call ugly people names? I suppose. It's free speech after all. Does that make my doing it okay?