Muslim anger at Mohammed Cartoon & Freedom of speech

[Kurgan]

As to the issue of what constitutes a violation of the prohibition on "graven images" and such, we're pondering that very question in a course I'm taking. Some believe it only refers to idols (images of false gods being worshipped in place of, before, or besides the one true God), others believe it forbids depictions of the true God, others feel it forbids depictions of human beings (since human beings are the "image of God") and still others feel it forbids all artwork that is representational. Of course one could argue from scripture itself that that ancient Israelites/Hebrews made plenty of images of heavenly and earthly beings (like the cherubim on the ark, the various animals in the temple, the bronze serpent in the wilderness, etc) and only the bronze serpent was ever critized as being idolatrous, because many years after it was commanded to be built by God to cure people, it was being worshipped as a god itself. Some monotheistic non-Christians would consider the worship of Jesus to be idolatrous. Those of the unitarian position feel that trinitarians are idolaters for worshipping three divine persons in one Godhead. Even though Jesus had a body, face, etc, and so could theoretically be depicted in art, they would consider this worship of a man to be a violation of the commandment. Others say modern Christians need not follow the "old law" anymore because Jesus has fulfilled, clarified, or abrogated these rules in favor of new ones (for example they'd cite the non-observance of the Sabbath by most Christians as proof of this. others say only the "ceremonial law" is abrogated, while the "moral law" is still in full force, just not the physical punishments for it).

 

I should add, yet another interpretation of the "graven images" are only those that are on wood or stone, in other words, that which is in relief or sculpture. So 2-d images (like paintings, drawings, things that are "flat") are permissable to be made of saints, angels, Jesus or even the other members of the Godhead (the Father God and Holy Spirit). Apparently in the Greco-Roman world there may also have been a superstition against creating a portrait (a realistic depicition of a person's face framed) of a person while that person was still alive. Of course that didn't necessarily stop people, but before a certain period you don't have any portraits except on gravestones then all of a sudden you have a ton of them. It's one interpretation anyway.

 

Additionally, how people number the commandments varies. Remember the chapter and verse numbers were added to Bibles in the middle ages, and don't necessarily represent always a clear change in thought or statement.

 

Here is one of many sites that explain the different numberings:

http://biblia.com/jesusbible/deut3.htm

 

Another:

http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/2005/07/which-ten-commandments.html

 

And another:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm

 

All the religious groups mentioned agree that these are the commandents of God, but the numbering and interpretation differ somewhat.

 

For further information please research the "Iconoclast controversy" (key words: Iconoclasm, Iconoclast, Iconophile, etc.). There was also a big hooplah over this during the Protestant Reformation. Islam went through a period of apparent change too but I know less about this. Early art of Muhammad and angels being depicted exists. Other artworks show the faces scraped off, and more modern Islamic art shows very stylized, symbolic art in order to avoid depicting humans and even animals.

[Darth_Malak02]

Of course, it was yet another typical show about a dysfunctional family, so either way I'm not suprised it got canned.

 

I can see why the Muslims are royally pissed over the comic, but they should understand that nothing is sacred when in the media, unfortunately.

 

 

I believe that no one has the right to make fun of another religion...especially if it is so controversial right now...Freedom of speech/press does exist, but it comes to a point where you have to say "that's not right." think of it this way...They have rules in school saying that you cannot swear and can't wear vulgar shirts, and stuff like that. Apply that to real life and it basically is saying that you have freedoms but don't abuse them.

[SkinWalker]

I believe that no one has the right to make fun of another religion...especially if it is so controversial right now...Freedom of speech/press does exist, but it comes to a point where you have to say "that's not right."

 

But when it is religions that are pressuring governments for changes to suit their religious doctrines or pressuring governents to offer special status. Or when it is religion that is used as the reason for anti-social behavior, then that religion may deserve satire and ridicule. I certainly deserves criticism.

 

That goes for any religion: Islam; Christianity; Buddhism; Hinduism; the Navajo Way; whatever

[Kurgan]

But (I forgot to add), that I think few would consider a carving of a representation of the "Ten Commandments" to be a graven image as referred to in the Biblical text. Rhetorically it works, but theologically, no, unless people are worshipping that particular rock monument..

 

This is akin to the stylized calligraphy done by Muslim artists on the cover of Qu'rans or in mosques. Depictions of words (which don't have any objective existence on their own as living creatures) is pretty much okay with anybody.

[Kurgan]

But when it is religions that are pressuring governments for changes to suit their religious doctrines or pressuring governents to offer special status. Or when it is religion that is used as the reason for anti-social behavior, then that religion may deserve satire and ridicule. I certainly deserves criticism.

 

That goes for any religion: Islam; Christianity; Buddhism; Hinduism; the Navajo Way; whatever

 

Ah yes, like the temperance movement pushing for prohibition of alcohol, or the abolitionist movement calling for the outlawing of slavery (or the defenders of slavery based on biblical traditions). MLK Jr. frequently used religion to push his political agenda, through disrupting society. You even have figures like John Brown using violence to further a political goal, and justifying it with religious rhetoric. You have Ghandi's use of religion to furhter Indian independence through disruption and citation to violence against citizens (and again furthered and motivated by religious fervor). Various Native American "liberation" movements have been and still are religiously motivated and sanctioned. Liberation Theology... the Dali Lama, 'nuff said. Very good point!

 

Right now we're currently studying the rise of American evangelicalism (after the Civil War) and the various causes and motivations. For example one reason given for pushing for women's suffrage was that women were believed to be more spiritual by nature than men (and thus if given the vote, would guide the nation into an era of higher conscience and virtue). Certainly higher church attendance and practice of "virtues" were more frequently linked to the female gender in that time.

[SkinWalker]

My point is good and it stands. Criticism and satire were used against those individuals and critical thought eventually prevailed. Criticism and satire aren't always done for the cause of right. But they are tools that should never be censored or disallowed if we are to engage in critical thought. And by every definition of the word, John Brown was a terrorist. We accept him because his cause was just, but he was a terrorist.

 

Rhetorically it works, but theologically, no, unless people are worshipping that particular rock monument

 

I'd say the rock is being worshipped if we accept that the Oxford English Dictionary is a valid source for defining the lexicon of the English language.

 

1. a. trans. To honour or revere as a supernatural being or power, or as a holy thing; to regard or approach with veneration; to adore with appropriate acts, rites, or ceremonies.

[Kurgan]

I see your worship of the Oxford English Dictionary continues unabated, Skin. And I took you for an atheist!

 

Ah, but religious people make a distinction between reverential awe given to GOD(s), and that given to non-GOD(s) (except pantheists I suppose).

 

For some this distinction is less clear though. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses are forbidden to salute the flag (though this may have more to do with a prohibition against swearing oaths rather than the homage paid to a piece of cloth representing the nation).

 

For example, archaically it was termed to "give worship" to somebody who won the race or the tournament, even though such people did not consider themselves to be polytheists. An achiever may win the "worship" of his peers, but may not be the figurehead of a religion. Otherwise, yes, you can say people worship the Ten Commandments, George W. Bush, Oprah, I-pods, cheeseburgers, etc. again, rhetorically excellent, theologically empty.

 

Some would argue (and bear with me here) that there is actually no such thing as "idolatry" because the premise of idolatry is that the thing itself is the deity or the permanent habitation of the deity. Somebody might reverence a statue of Jesus or a carving of the ten commandments for what it represents, rather than the object itself, as if it had any real power. Compare to issues about flag burning, etc. (incidentally, my brother came up with a theory that the flag companies had some kind of deal with protesters who burn them, though interestingly enough you can see the American flag often burned in various countries on TV was hastily constructed for the purpose, for example with the wrong number of stripes/stars or arrangement, etc.)

 

I agree that satire has a place in free speech, I don't think I ever condemned it. Merely, I can see why it upsets people. I think on some level it's meant to (the people it's directed against), otherwise it wouldn't be effective as a means of persuasion or cheerleading for a cause. Definately. And by the same token, those that use satire should not be surprised when they strike a nerve. I'm not in favor of prior restraint (I'm an American, after all), nor of people not being allowed to be offended or raise protest. And while I think that those who incite violence bear some responsibility for it, ultimately the perpetuators of violence are still responsible for their own actions (hence the debate about "hate speech" legislation in many countries and differing results). As the beginning of dialouge it [satire] can be a valuable thing. All to often though I think it is merely used as a tool of invigorating your supporters. Which I guess is too an admirable goal.

[rccar328]

Yeah, these cartoons probably shouldn't have been printed, and, given the current world climate and the way the Islamic world has treated any percieved insult to their religion, it was definitely a bad idea...but that doesn't excuse the kinds of things that have been going on. Flag burning is one thing, but I remember reading a story more than a week ago about a Middle-Eastern shopkeeper who was dragged out into the street and beaten because he hadn't removed Danish goods from his shelves. Embassies are being attacked throughout the Middle East. Protestors are advocating even more violence:

 

The thing that really gets me is that these Muslims who are violently protesting the cartoons are showing the truth in the cartoons (which, from what I've seen and heard, use depictions of Mohammed to criticize/point out the violence in the Islamic world).

 

The initial complaint that I heard about the cartoon was that Islam prohibits depictions of Mohammed in order to prevent idol worship...but in my opinion, any Muslim who would worship or who thinks someone would worship a political cartoon just because it contains a poorly-drawn picture of Mohammed is a moron. But from what I've heard, the complaints have gone beyond that to "they're insulting Islam," so I guess that's a moot point.

 

 

I also think this is a stark contrast to Christianity and Islam - yeah, lots of Christians complained about the recent TV series "Book of Daniel", but Christians didn't kill the show. For one thing, it was an absolute flop in the ratings - the fact that it was an entirely biased, extremely inaccurate portrayal of Christianity very likely plays into that. Not only was its depiction of a Christian family totally non-typical to the extreme, its theology was nowhere near anything resembling mainstream Christianity. The article I cited quotes a CAA (Creative Artists Agency) agent as saying, "Religion’s not that hot anymore. The afterglow of Mel Gibson’s ‘The Passion’ has completely faded. Jesus is simply not that marketable right now." This guy has no idea what he's talking about. If that was true, The Chronicles of Narnia movie would have been a total flop...but to date, it's the 26th highest grossing movie at the US box office. The only thing "Book of Daniel" is indicative of is Hollywood's ignorance of what the Christian TV & movie audience wants to see, if they were marketing to Christians. If they were marketing to non-Christians or Christian bashers, then they were just as stupid for not realizing that they don't make up a large enough market.

 

There have been other examples, mainly of art put on display: the 'artist' who put a cricifix in a vial of urine, the 'artist' who splattered feces on a picture of the Virgin Mary...for one thing, most Americans who are Christians realize that these people aren't artists, they're idiots. By some of your comments, it seems as though you fear Christianity more than Islam...yet after these things were put on display (and after "Book of Daniel" broadcast), American Christians weren't rioting in the streets. Nobody attacked NBC or advocated the beheading (or be'hand'ing) of the so-called artists. The basic feel of the protests was, "we don't appreciate being insulted in this way," though opinions did range from outrage to apathy...personally, as an American Christian, I thought it was stupid - I watched just enough of "Book of Daniel" to know that it wasn't worth my time to watch (which I really gathered reading about it beforehand, but I thought I'd give it a fair chance anyway).

 

I guess the basic point I'm trying to make is that when militant Islam comes under attack through art or the press, they become even more militant, while 'militant Christianity' really doesn't exist on a large enough scale to be significant.

[Samuel Dravis]

The thing that really gets me is that these Muslims who are violently protesting the cartoons are showing the truth in the cartoons (which, from what I've seen and heard, use depictions of Mohammed to criticize/point out the violence in the Islamic world).

http://rupix.com/tomgross/

 

While these particular cartoons are not specifically against a religion (many are antisemetic though), they do show that the fine art of making 'offensive' cartoons is not just one that the Danes possess. It's within imagination that someone could even feel the need to protest these. It's just funny that while they're worried about someone making light of their religion's views, their own cartoonists draw pictures of Israelis chopping kids up with an axe made out of a swastika. I'm not defending the Israelis past actions, but seriously. When does free speech cross the line to just outright hatemongering? I don't think the Islamic world's hands are clean.

 

Some other links:

 

http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-21.htm

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Cartoons/Cartoon%20Links/Cartoon%20links.htm - many of these actually make good points. I don't want anyone to think that all arabic cartoons are like those above.

 

 

EDIT: Wikipedia has an article on it. It's interesting to see how the Danes treat this:

Section 140 of the Danish Penal Code prohibits blasphemy. However, this law has not been used since 1938. [20] Section 266b of the Danish Penal Code prohibits expressions that threaten, deride or degrade on the grounds of race, colour, national or ethnic origin, belief or sexual orientation. It has never, however, been used to prohibit statements offensive to religion. The Danish public prosecutor determined that the Muhammad cartoons were not blasphemy in Danish law.[6]

I think it qualifies as offensive, but not something to die for:

No Muslim visual images or depictions of God exist because such artistic depictions may lead to idolatry and are thus disdained. Moreover, most Muslims believe that God is incorporeal, making any two- or three- dimensional depictions impossible. Instead, Muslims describe God by the many divine attributes mentioned in the Qur'an. All but one Sura (chapter) of the Qur'an begins with the phrase "In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful". These are regarded as the most important divine attributes, at least in the sense that Muslims repeat them most frequently during their prayers (salat) and throughout their daily lives.

So there have been riots for something that may lead to idolatry. If I understand that correctly, the actual images of Allah are not the sin. It's worshipping the physical object that is... I somehow doubt we could find a single Muslim who would do that with those cartoons.

[Lady Jedi]

Dravis, your first link just proves what I was saying previously: Both sides are screwing up here. If everyone was just a touch more respecting of others' beliefs, religions, societies, everything, folks would get along a lot better.

 

The Islams are publishing extremely awful, and potentially hurtful, cartoons, yet they are throwing fits about the Danish, doing a bit of the same. How stupid.

 

Once again: 'Free Speech' does not mean the same thing as 'You can say and publish anything you damn well please'. Ugh, people bother me.

 

EDIT:

When does free speech cross the line to just outright hatemongering? I don't think the Islamic world's hands are clean.

When societies do things as have been displayed in this thread. When the Danish publish a cartoon that they know is offensive. When the Islams burn flags of other nations, and publish cartoons that are equally offensive as what the Danish put out ther. When people take their so called freedom and using it to purposefully offend and hurt others. That's when a line has been crossed.

 

EDIT AGAIN:

So there have been riots for something that may lead to idolatry. Just how many people think that it would be possible for someone to worship those cartoons anyway?

I don't think that people are going to worship something depicted in a cartoon, but that's not the point. I think that there is a point in religions where people forget the reason for something, and only remember that the something is prohibited, ie. visual depictions of Muhammed in this case. I highly doubt that anyone is concerned about others worshipping the cartoon image (reason for 'rule'), rather they are angered over the very fact that it was done.

[Samuel Dravis]

I highly doubt that anyone is concerned about others worshipping the cartoon image (reason for 'rule'), rather they are angered over the very fact that it was done.

I think they have more of a point with how the cartoons generalized all muslims as extremists, which is not the case at all. Seeing as the actual depiction is not the problem, that's pretty much all the reason they have left. That would make the cartoon the same level of insult as the other Arab ones I posted. I have little respect for those people who will state something as the view of their religion without bothering to check to see if it's true. If you don't know the reason you do something, how do you know if it's true or it's not and you just hadn't thought about it?

[rccar328]

I found something interesting...

 

This site shows various depictions of Mohammed throughout history, along with various contemporary depictions. Obviously, the contemporary images are much more offensive, but the idea that Muslims are objecting to these cartoons because they believe no one is to make a picture of Mohammed is ludicrous.

[Samuel Dravis]

Thanks for the site. I hadn't seen all of the images before, and some of those are quite deliberately insulting and definitely a provocation.

 

What's also interesting was this quote:

Yet when a delegation of Danish imams went to the Middle East to "discuss" the issue of the cartoons with senior officials and prominent Islamic scholars, the imams openly distributed a booklet that showed 15 images -- not only the original 12 cartoons, but three fraudulent anti-Mohammed depictions that were much more offensive than the ones published in Denmark. It is now thought that these three bonus images are what ignited the outrage in the Muslim world.

So they lied to the people that trusted them to instigate hatred. Now that's appropriate behavior from religious figures.

[txa1265]

Once again: 'Free Speech' does not mean the same thing as 'You can say and publish anything you damn well please'.

Actually it does ... it just doesn't mean you *should*

 

When societies do things as have been displayed in this thread. When the Danish publish a cartoon that they know is offensive. When the Islams burn flags of other nations, and publish cartoons that are equally offensive as what the Danish put out ther. When people take their so called freedom and using it to purposefully offend and hurt others. That's when a line has been crossed.

So long as the 'hurt' is linked to offending, I agree - the Danish and others had the right to publish, the Muslims had the right to be offended, and to respond by things like boycotts, etc.

 

That's when a line has been crossed.

As soon as private property belonging to another person is destroyed, death threats made, and the other radical violence being done *by* Muslims *against* anything non-Muslim, the *real* line was crossed.

 

And, unfortunately, by these acts the point of the cartoon was proven true.

 

Mike

[toms]

I read somewhere that some muslim factions allow, or even use representations of mohammed... however some others don't. So its not a universal prohibition.. a bit like the factions in christianity with respect to idols.

 

As for those signs, beld by protesters in london, calling for deaths of danes, another 7/7 etc.. the police will apparently charge any of the people they can identify. Even the organisers of the rally have distanced themselves from and said they were shocked by a few of the signs..

 

In the UK and a lot of countries the line is drawn at "incitement to commit violence". So you can praise hitler, for example, but you can't incite people to go out and kill jews.

Unfortunately its notoriously hard to prove... as the release of those two BNP leaders proved..

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I agree 100% with the Lady here. Certain people use freedom of speech as a shield, thinking it allows them to insult, threaten, be childish, or otherwise act up (sure, it does, in some cases, but you know what I mean). Yes, there is freedom of speech, but there's something called "courtesy", too. There are things called "politeness", "tactfullness", "friendliness", and so on. Whoever goes "we can be morons, 'cause we've got teh freedom o' speexx0rz!!11" miss the point by a mile.

[txa1265]

That is very nice, but the very basis of free speech is the protection of people to express ideas and opinions that *YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR*! Nice, polite, pithy banter doesn't *NEED* protection.

 

So rather than leaving the thought that the basic religious claims of a peaceful Islam are at odds with the reality that worldwide terrorism has an almost monolithically Muslim face, a single frame political cartoon - which are *meant* to stir up discussion - expresses it to provoke thought and discussion.

 

What happens? The peaceful muslim community starts killing, burning and blowing up stuff in the great peace-loving tradition of Islam.

 

Mike

[rccar328]

Mike, I've gotta complement you on an excellent post. Very, very good points.

 

 

 

Also, I found this interesting inverview about the situation and how apologizing for and condemning the cartoons in the face of these violent protests is entirely the wrong thing to do.

[Kurgan]

I agree, the protesters lose the moral highground for their outrage when they "live up" to the charge made by the political cartoon(s), ie: that Muslims are terrorists/Islam is a violent religion. Obviously not all Muslims react as they do, as some Muslim groups have already spoken out to condemn the actions of the rioters and death-threat makers, but obviously the bad people's actions speak the loudest to the world. All these folks did was perpetuate the stereotype that the cartoonists were portraying.

 

Perhaps something good can come out of this in the end for them. Perhaps the overreaction of these fanatics (and I will call them fanatics who resort to mob violence over even a flagrant insult, against innocent people) will spur the tides of reform in Islamic circles and organization (to keep the over zealous followers under control).

 

At least how I understand moderate Islam, Muslims are authorized to defend their faith, and even to use violence, but only when first attacked with violence, and only until the threat has been vanquished and the enemy agrees to peace. In this case a rhetorical attack was met with physical attacks, and so they can freely condemn it. But without a central authority in Islam there is little to keep these different factions together.

[rccar328]

Perhaps something good can come out of this in the end for them. Perhaps the overreaction of these fanatics (and I will call them fanatics who resort to mob violence over even a flagrant insult, against innocent people) will spur the tides of reform in Islamic circles and organization (to keep the over zealous followers under control).

That'd be nice.

[Tiresias BC]

What happens? The peaceful muslim community starts killing, burning and blowing up stuff in the great peace-loving tradition of Islam.

 

Even the most liberal Middle Eastern regimes maintain a de facto approval system for publishing on politically sensitive topics. The most likely reason for the protests is that, to those accustomed to more controlled media, the cartoons would seem to be a carefully considered and deliberate insult sanctioned by a European government. Obviously it was not; the Danish government likely wishes it could have vetted the cartoon.

 

The intensity of the violence is rather unsurprising, nor is it linked solely to the Islamic world. The same sort of disruptions occur wherever states are perceived as unable or unwilling to address the concerns of their societies, especially if the concerns of outsiders seem to be treated with greater deference. The problem is endemic throughout the Third World, where international financial institutions determine, to a large degree, the economic policies. The United States had its own dose of disorder against government malaise in the sixties, which brings up another reason for the violence: demographics.

 

Young people are more extreme because they have little to lose. When they are unemployed and have no prospects, they have nothing to lose. It's not a coincidence that the baby boomers generated the 1960s. The concentration of youth is far more extreme in the protesting countries.

 

For what it's worth, I think the Danes have the right to publish whatever they wish. The fortunate side effect of a free press is that as many different presses will publish as can sell. If they don't want to be offended, go read something else. There are Arabic newspapers of more varied political stripes in Europe than there are in the Middle East, after all - and why would that be?

 

I'm astonished people are as upset with the publisher of the cartoons as they are. Sure, they're tasteless, but there's no better way to enliven debate than to violate taboos. The Daily Show and The Onion show that well enough.

 

Hi, by the way. It is my first post.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Welcome aboard, especially with posts such as that one!

 

I'm astonished people are as upset with the publisher of the cartoons as they are. Sure, they're tasteless, but there's no better way to enliven debate than to violate taboos. The Daily Show and The Onion show that well enough.

Isn't the debate about Islamic fundamentalism enlivened enough as it is, though?

 

As for the "we can/should publish caricatures because we can": Just that you can, does not mean you should. I'm more than just a bit irritated on people who think the cartoons should be published widely almost solely to make use of freedom of speech, and that when certain newspapers don't print the pictures, it's because freedom of speech is not as good as it should be. There's something called politeness and courtesy in the world.

 

But on the other hand, I'm even more irritated at the people who think the newspapers should not print the cartoons. Newspapers print pictures and footage of warfare, catastrophes, starvation, violence, fires, terrorist attacks, and whatever other s**t there is in the world. People who think an insulting cartoon is too graphic for the news, when they at the same time sanction footage of disaster sites and warfare, have seriously lost their sense of perspective.

 

I think another important thing to remember is that the attacks on our embassies, the burning of our flags, and the violence against Norsemen living in the Middle East are not reactions solely to those cartoons. Norway and Denmark are allies of one of the arch-enemies of Islamic fundamentalistm - the USA. We've got troops in Afghanistan and Iraq both. We've been at war with Islamic extremism since 2001 - that's five years. Islamic fundamentalist leaders have been pushing for attacks on Norway and Denmark for years already, long before these cartoons were published.

 

There is this, though:

"Sorry, Norway and Denmark".

[toms]

Supposedly there had been a number of politically sensitive issues with immigration and asylum seekers in denmark just prior to the publication of the cartoons.. which meant that the atmosphere was already pretty tense. Or thats what I heard.

 

I agree that people shouldn't reprint them "just to make a point". But on the other hand they should be allowed to reprint them if they have a reasonable point ot make. After all, would suspect we have all seen them by now, so we at least know what we are talking about.

 

I'd suspect that a lot of those protesting and dying don't even know what they are protesting about.. and only have exagerated rumour and the word of extremist preachers to spur them on. WHich shows the danger of not having freedom of speech.

 

Good point about the controlled middle-eastern press! When it is so controlled on political subjects it is unsurprising that even small comments and changes of tone are often taken as important political shifts by the government.

In the same way that we find a lot of the concepts in the middle east hard to grasp... the concept of a free press and governments NOT being able to control what is published must be pretty alien to them.

 

Muslims in the UK (and other western countries) should know better though - and while they have every right to demonstrate against the cartoons and the newspaper.. they shouldn't be daft enough to be demonstrating against the whole country.

 

PS/ As far as I know 12 people have died so far... all muslim protestors. One can't help but wonder if they are now standing infront of god/allah/whoever feeling really sheepish when asked if it was worth it.

[edlib]

It would be nice if some (any!) good could come out of this situation.

 

For example: It would be great if we could apply the lessons learned in this truly dumb conflict to the culture wars currently being fought in the Western world.

I really hope we can use this discussion as a springboard to a serious debate over the impact of religious fundamentalists (of all faiths and denominations!) trying to use the laws and rules of their personal faith to pressure others who don't happen to share that faith, or obey those spiritual laws.

 

But, in the world we live in, I fear that might just be too much to expect...

[Samuel Dravis]

As for the "we can/should publish caricatures because we can": Just that you can, does not mean you should. I'm more than just a bit irritated on people who think the cartoons should be published widely almost solely to make use of freedom of speech, and that when certain newspapers don't print the pictures, it's because freedom of speech is not as good as it should be. There's something called politeness and courtesy in the world.

There's something called restraint and civility in the world too. As far as I can tell, there's a lot more people disrespecting that rule than there were involved in creating the pics. People have died because of the lack of restraint these people are demonstrating. Is that acceptable?

 

There is this, though:

"Sorry, Norway and Denmark".

That shouldn't exist. They have nothing to be sorry for. I've never defended the insanity of christian radicals and I condemn them freely; they don't represent me in any way. Why should they say sorry for them? Their radicals are supposedly just as far from them as mine are from me. No one should apologize for extremists. They're responsible for their own actions.

 

 

I've been looking at the pics a bit and wanted to comment on the potential offensiveness of each one from my perspective. Warning: this is a link to the pictures in question, if you don't want to see then don't click.

 

Link to pics

 

First: Just a representation and we've already discovered there's no rule against that.

 

Second: Looks like he has horns on if you want to see it that way. Mildy offensive, because that would be equating Islam with evil.

 

Third: Representation, nothing to see here, move along...

 

Fourth: Offensive, because it directly implies all Islam is violent, which is not true... see no. 2.

 

Fifth: Since it is a commentary on the supposed reward for killing people, it falls under free speech and should be allowed.

 

Sixth: This one is not making a point besides the fact they think they should publish anything and get away with it. It's just to cause anger. Offensive.

 

Seventh: they're making a point on that they afraid they're going to be attacked because they made images of Mohammed. They don't need it though, because it's not against the apparent rules anyway.

 

Eighth: I don't know what it says.

 

Ninth: I don't know what it says.

 

Tenth: Same as seventh.

 

Eleventh: They are making a point on the radical face that Islam now has with the western world. Acceptable under free speech.

 

Twelfth: I can't figure out what it means.

 

The three other fake ones are simply direct attacks on Islam in general, with no comments or any political point being made. It's interesting how those are the only three that even approach being incredibly offensive.