So by now we’ve all heard about the infamous Muslim cartoon that’s causing a stir. Muslims hate it because it’s, well, very anti-Muslim, and I think they’re right. But at the same time THEY must understand that supposedly moderate Muslims are also the purveyors of bigotry against Americans and Jews on a global scale. We’re talking about bigotry here, but it goes in both directions. It’s Akin to an anti-KKK cartoon (although the KKK doesn’t really kill people anymore), in that it’s wrong, but how bad can we really feel? The outraged Muslim community needs to stop living by the sword. Sorry about the cartoon.Special comment from our local hairless correspondent!
sntc and dave angie screen name is ang6666 four six’s not three i love her blog and i try to checkit out every day
tomwright your right about french cars sucking unless your talking about there rally cars or renault f1 cars and for your info seats are volkswagons no relation to fiat
Depictions of Mohammed by the West are nothing new. Check out this link:
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive
There is no reason for Denmark to apologize for anything.
Apple – thanks for the link. Much better than the one I posted.
I’m eating some danish butter cookies, that are very good. I’ll buy a new box tomorrow. Perhaps this evening I’ll propose my wife a glass of french wine…..
No, Denmark does not need to apologize. This is exactly what Sam Harris was talking about in “End of Faith” – how making fun of religion is somehow taboo.
I just hope no one gets killed because of it – if someone hasn’t already.
If I am not mistaken, the newspaper has been running these for quite some time, august of last year. Why the uproar now, so recently after the EU decided not to support Hamas?
Uproars like these are seldom by chance!
leestein:
I can’t seem to get to that zombietime link.
Of course I am for free speech, but I think we need to look at this from a different angle.
Folks who live in free, secular societies understand and “get it” when it comes to humor, satire, and poking fun at serious subjects. We often find it objectionable when our respective sides are lampooned, but we understand intrinsically that this is the price of true freedom. Of course it’s not nice to intentionally set out to hurt others feelings and we generally avoid this, but when it happens unintentionally we apologize for the perceived offense.
We share this planet with those who do not live in free secular societies and simply have no frame of reference for a free press, independent from government/religious coercion. So one has to ask, what was the purpose of publishing these cartoons in the first place? I read in the paper that it was an exercise to test the limits of free speech, but why do it in this manner? Why “stick it in their eye” so-to-speak? What’s the point? Certainly they knew it would be highly offensive to all Muslims! I empathize with their deeply held religious beliefs. I also empathize with Atheists as well when people whether by intention or through ignorance say things which are highly offensive.
Now it can be said that there’s more than a little hypocrisy from the Muslim side as witnessed by what they say about Christians and Jews! There is also the phenomenon of Muslims who live in the USA and elsewhere who can speak out. Yet, they too are angry and upset about these political cartoons. Therefor, we have to lay the blame at the feet of their religion and what it teaches. It is most definitely not the same as Christianity.
I guess the bottom line for me is that people should not say or write things that they know will be highly inflammatory when it comes to people’s religion. Of course, they have the right to do so, but there could be consequences.
Problem is, that line is drawn in different places for everyone. I’m sure what might irk you might not phase spanders, for example.
So people have to ba allowed to speak their minds and let the chips fall where they will.
As for the muslims, I find it ironic that they are calling the printing of an image of mohammed an act of extremism, when they are prone to blowing themselves up to make a point.
No matter how you color it, they are still trying to impose their ways on others who do not believe as they do.
Atheism may not haveas much support as we’d like. It’s good to know that freedom of speech is alive and well in other parts of the world.
Tim:
Y’see, I agreed w/most of your post…sort of.
But this sounds like…an argument from intimidation. Everything has consequences? Of course it does.
I recall that when Thomas Paine published the Age of Reason, he was thoroughly mobbed whenever he appeared in public in the US. It was so horrible, that he wasn’t allowed in the country he’d helped found.
Salmon Rushdie, writing the Satanic Verses, going into hiding (X) amount of years.
Religious folk is scary (most, not ALL).
Fact is, I say bullshit to walking on eggshells. It is one thing entirely to make derogatory comments about one’s gender (all 3!), race, etc.
Religion’s just an opinion, as far I’m concerned. If I think an opinion is foolish, I’ll say so.
Far as I’m concerned, ALL religion is foolish. You want to keep that opinion? Hey, it’s your business. Long as it stays your business.
Lessee, my 10-foot pole is out being cleaned. Damn!
karen:
I’m chuckling very, VERY deeply at that.
udonman
yeah, but seat and fiat rhyme, so they must be related. (I am just using the same logic the religionist use) Besides, didn’t you see the humor tags?
On the topic, and as I have seen asked elsewhere, why ahve we not seen riots over the South Park super best friends episode? Is it on after mulims bedtimes or something?
RA,
I appreciate your insight, but don’t think it’s reasonable to dismiss religion as mere opinion. Actually, I think a deeply held belief in anything transcends opinion.
This goes to the heart of what I’m trying to point out. If you know that certain people would be highly offended by a particular way of expressing something, then it’s likely you would proceed with the intention of causing offense. This is particularly true if you could make your point in some other fashion or by using less offensive imagery.
Now don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting we have to “walk on eggshells”, but just pay attention to how the message is likely to be received. In the case of the political cartoons from Denmark, I still have to ask why they chose the subject matter they did. Was this really necessary?
Tim:
Hold the presses!
Well, I have a deeply held belief in the Separation of Church and State, so by that logic, it transcends your opinion. Hee-HEE-hee!
Oh, like your hero, Doc Savage, who states ‘Liberalism is a mental disorder’? How is THAT particular ‘imagery’ less offensive?
What, are you bi-polar or something? Howzabout equating NAMBLA w/gay marriage proponents?
Have you turned over a new leaf, or something?
What have you done w/the real Tim?
Religion is definitely much more than an opinion. Religion defines a person’s entire world view. And that’s the problem – if one’s world view causes them to believe that they are the only ones worth saving, then that leaves the rest of the world open to dehumanization.
But I’m with RA (and Sam Harris) – I too am sick of walking on eggshells. Unreasonable assumptions should be openly ridiculed, though it doesn’t necessarily have to be done in an antagonizing manner (of course it will always be seen as antagonistic to the truly faithful.) But there shouldn’t be a taboo against mocking ridiculous ideas, and we certainly shouldn’t be expected to follow the ridiculous rules laid out by a ridiculous idea. If they have a problem with it (and by they I mean Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Rastafarians, Scientologists, Wiccans, etc.), then all they have to do is provide quantifiable proof that these ideas are not as ridiculous as they sound.
I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
yeah tom I know you where joking I didnt mean anything by it just glad that some on else knows about these cars hehe
and Tim those cartoons were published in a free secular soceity they were not ment for print in an islamic society. and like some one already said they were published in august and nothing came about until the eu decided not to back hamas.
You say you are for the freedom of the press so that means if someone decides to print somthing that might offend some one in another country that is there right but when
I read your post you are not for freedom of the press are you
the way it reads to me and i know it may not be the way you intended to write it but you seem to imply that some one can only print somthing that will not offend others
now I ask you what can you print that will not offend others
I think Tim’s learned that it’s easier to get your point across if you approach the conversation with empathy and respect. I don’t fault him for that. I’ve been learning the same thing. It’s called growth.
tomwright:
No, they don’t get the Comedy Channel. Or satellite TV, I’m guessing.
Excepting perhaps those who drive Beemers or Benzes.
r4d:
Point well taken.
Time will tell, however.
I agree with r4d and reluctant. If somebody is spewing absolutely foolish ideas and expecting the world to live their life according to them, how can they expect NOT to get made fun of?
“world to live their life”
You can tell I’m in a typing mood.
Okay, let’s get things straight. It is O.K. for them to call for death threats but when we get offended it is labled ‘whining’.
Living in Hell:
Big differential there.
We don’t go around threatening folks, or acting on said threats.
More proof that evolution did indeed form this world.
aspergers syndrome and early childhood
aspergers syndrome and early childhood