Cartoons upset Danish Muslims

[Thunderball]

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.

I'd apologize as soon as they apologize for burning western flags and promise not to do so again everytime someone gets a little upset.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I'd apologize as soon as they apologize for burning western flags and promise not to do so again everytime someone gets a little upset.

Well now that's a question like the chicken or the egg.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

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

I'll second this.........great post Swat, great to have a Muslim perspective in all of this.

Welcome to CP.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I'd apologize as soon as they apologize for burning western flags and promise not to do so again everytime someone gets a little upset.

Really though, who cares? If some dufus in Iran is burning a Canadian flag because of some petty issue, what the hell do I care? On the other hand, what does the same dufus in Iran care about what some guy in Denmark has doodled in the newspaper.

[CarlW]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

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?

I've always wondered about this since the whole thing started. If Islam has forbidden pictures and stuff of their Prophet how did they know that all the cartoons depict him in the first place? I'm sure some must've had captions or something but the one with the Turban bomb didn't seem to have any.

Must've used a 'Jump to Conclusions Mat' (For those that have seen the Movie Office Space).

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

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?

The editor of the paper and the cartoonists said "these are cartoons depicting Muhammad". No assumptions or leaps necessary.

[Resolute 14]

Indeed. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the paper specifically request pictures of Mohammad spefically as a test of free speech?

Edit: yup. Wikipedia to the rescue again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_cartoons

On September 30, 2005, the daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten ("The Jutland Post") published an article titled "Muhammeds ansigt"[8] ("The face of Muhammad"). The article consisted of 12 cartoons (of which only some depicted Muhammad) and an explanatory text, in which Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's culture editor, commented:
The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance in the present context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him.

[Cowperson]

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.

The managing editor of the newspaper in question, the overseer of all departments, did apologize on behalf of the newspaper if I'm not mistaken.

His subordinate, the cultural editor, the person who sponsored the artistic challenge, which was defined as a test to see if Dutch artists were self-censoring themselves out of fear of Muslim violence, has not apologized and has said he would not.

If Muslims think there is a problem or think they have been victimized, they should take it through the hate crime laws of those particular countries.

As an example, in France, the local Muslim organizations are suing two French newspapers . . . .which is something I don't mind at all as courts would then decide if any laws have been violated or any hate crime committed.

If you are watching the demands coming out of the Muslim community, however, its mostly centered around western governments apologizing . . . . . a clear agenda.

Of course, western governments shouldn't apologize for the actions of a free press.

And governments certainly shouldn't apologize in the face of the astonishingly hypocritical stance of militant Muslims.

Cowperson

[shoestring]

I'm kind of radical tonight but I agree .
We should shoot all people that publish anything.
And if anything means ideas ,shoot the *******s.
And if you can't stomach publishers of ideas hunt them down like the oppostion they might become.
Yea what a revolutionary idea. Credit me.

Why does an argument like this exist?
I don't understand any cultures, but they have to assume that new ideas are propelling them into a new existence,don't they?

[shoestring]

yikes i got ******,I thought I said," Publish"s
no it was *******s thats it. Bas tard s

shoot him /them i say ,the f *** ****s

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The editor of the paper and the cartoonists said "these are cartoons depicting Muhammad". No assumptions or leaps necessary.

Maybe they meant Mohammed Jones the famous Norwegian Boxer?

[ChrisC]

I don't really see this as a particularly Muslim thing....it's an intolerant bully thing. It's just that the global Muslim community is particularly good at it right now. But say something about Catholicism (for example) that Catholics don't like and then just watch the extremist response button get pushed and the alarm bells start ringing.

Religious extremist groups have been tempered in the Western world because we now live in fairly secular society (thank "god" ). But give them a chance and they'd be responding in just the same way to perceived slights against their idols as the fanatics in the Middle East.

Really though, what we are seeing is clash over freedom of expression and those who would constrain such freedom because it threatens or undermines their "crutch". It's interesting to see what side various groups, governments and people take and which ones fold like a house of cards.

[FireFly]

If expression is so free, why can't I call an Asian yellow or a Native red? Why can't I call a gay man a fag? It's political correctness, and if you want to use the freedom of speech defense, then I reserve my right to be a right wing red-neck and start spewing out hateful things against everyone.

Both sides are being hypocritical. Apparently it's free speech if we insult Muslims, so long as we don't call them brown which would be racist? Uhhhh.... their religion is part of their race, much like the Jewish people.

Cow, I agree that their complaints need to be taken up through the proper channels. I also agree that this is brought on by their governments who are looking to whip their citizens into a frenzy in order to better fight Western culture. I agree that they are completely over-reacting. However, I do think that they have legitimate complaints, and that you don't poke the damn bear! Seriously! Freedom of speech is nice, but use some common sense! You don't further antagonize an entire culture when you are currently waging war with some of them! In todays day of instant global communication, you can't do things like that! These people feel they have nothing to lose, so why not start a war over drawings!

[ChrisC]

One thing most religions don't seem to have is a sense of humour or a sense of perspective.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Both sides are being hypocritical. Apparently it's free speech if we insult Muslims, so long as we don't call them brown which would be racist? Uhhhh.... their religion is part of their race, much like the Jewish people.

Religion is not part of race. Religions are created by certain aspects of certain cultures to maintain control over their people. In the case of Muslims that control is certainly having a major worldwide effect right now.

Perhaps...and this hasnt been touched on...Are Religions Xenophobic?
Maybe the different religious cultures are truly afraid of or intolerant of each other to the point of phobias. Maybe these phobias are pushed by the leaders of the various religious establishments empowering theor followers to act in whatever way necessary to remove that problem?

[CarlW]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Perhaps...and this hasnt been touched on...Are Religions Xenophobic?
Maybe the different religious cultures are truly afraid of or intolerant of each other to the point of phobias. Maybe these phobias are pushed by the leaders of the various religious establishments empowering theor followers to act in whatever way necessary to remove that problem?

I don't believe that Religions themselves are Xenophobic (though the ones with that no other God besides me stuff makes one wonder) as there have been examples of cities and states where many Religions were able to survive peacefully (I.E. Present day Canada and USA, China during the Tang Dynasty, etc.), but notice that this is made possible by the state policies of the time. When Religion and State start getting mixed together there will be cases where the Xenophobic like part comes in, because the Religion is part of the State, an influx of foreign religions can be viewed as a foreign party trying to 'invade' or 'take over' the country, or insults to the religion in this case as an insult to the country, an attack on the religion is an attack on the country, and the list goes on. Of course there is also the fact of crazy extremists that like to incite the downtrodden into violence for their own twisted goals.

edit...grammar

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FireFly

If expression is so free, why can't I call an Asian yellow or a Native red? Why can't I call a gay man a fag? It's political correctness, and if you want to use the freedom of speech defense, then I reserve my right to be a right wing red-neck and start spewing out hateful things against everyone.

You can call an Asian yellow, a Native red and a gay man a fag. Nobody is stopping you. You can reserve your right to be a right-wing redneck all you want. You can even publish your thoughts in a newspaper (though you might have to pay for it yourself) . You won't go to jail.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You can call an Asian yellow, a Native red and a gay man a fag. Nobody is stopping you. You can reserve your right to be a right-wing redneck all you want. You can even publish your thoughts in a newspaper (though you might have to pay for it yourself) . You won't go to jail.

Nope, but I'll probably get my face punched in. And comments of such nature would never be allowed in any newspaper, so why is it acceptable to insult others?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Religion is not part of race. Religions are created by certain aspects of certain cultures to maintain control over their people. In the case of Muslims that control is certainly having a major worldwide effect right now.

Perhaps...and this hasnt been touched on...Are Religions Xenophobic?
Maybe the different religious cultures are truly afraid of or intolerant of each other to the point of phobias. Maybe these phobias are pushed by the leaders of the various religious establishments empowering theor followers to act in whatever way necessary to remove that problem?

Pardon me, it's part of their civilization. Anyone ever read 'The Clash of Civilizations and the Making of a New World Order' by Samuel P Huntington? Fabulous, fascinating stuff.

And Cheese, it's not all about control. Morality and such, certainly. It can be used by politicians to control their states, but other things can too.

And once again you class all religious cultures and followers under the same umbrella! Didn't the Pope say he wanted to have a peaceful, cordial relationship with the Muslims, and that they should work together to promote peace and goodwill? Oooooh.... scary.

[mbrown]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

I don't really see this as a particularly Muslim thing....it's an intolerant bully thing. It's just that the global Muslim community is particularly good at it right now. But say something about Catholicism (for example) that Catholics don't like and then just watch the extremist response button get pushed and the alarm bells start ringing.

Religious extremist groups have been tempered in the Western world because we now live in fairly secular society (thank "god" ). But give them a chance and they'd be responding in just the same way to perceived slights against their idols as the fanatics in the Middle East.

Really though, what we are seeing is clash over freedom of expression and those who would constrain such freedom because it threatens or undermines their "crutch". It's interesting to see what side various groups, governments and people take and which ones fold like a house of cards.

Well obviously you have something against all religions. I am however, tryign to think of the last time Catholics in any part of thw world killing people because they were non-believers.. or because they were upset... In fact, the anti-religious are sounding alot less tolerant towards religion as the very religions are about them non-believing.
think about that.