A Islamic DUer's take on the Cartoons

[ck4829]

I don't like the cartoons that are causing the uproar in the Islamic World.

I find them very offensive.

That being said, infringing on their right to draw these cartoons would be wrong, and starting and participating in acts of violence to "get even" with them would be an act of evil.

If you feel offended, it is fine to boycott, it is acceptable to reply with words, joke about the RW'ers who made them. Do something besides violent action.

[greyl]

1. Why do you say right wingers created them? nt

[ck4829]

5. No idea. LOL

My mind was wandering.

[EFerrari]

21. Because the right wing is the home of racism. That's why.

We might as well just say it out loud because it is true.

[greyl]

23. That's true, but these cartoons aren't commenting on race. nt

[EFerrari]

26. Imho, they are. And the wingers are really pushing the

envelope and will attempt to rip it.

I've never seen bigotry at this public level since I became an adult.

[greyl]

27. Well, you're incorrect and not "getting it".

Religion and race are different.
Why do you say the cartoons are racist?

http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html

[EFerrari]

28. Since "race" actually doesn't exist in science but only

as a socially constructed category, yes, I am getting it. As a brown, first generation woman, you bet I get it.

A depiction of bomb-shaped turbans has what to do with religion? How many blonde blue-eyed Muslims do you know?

I'm certainly not meaning to offend any one. The point is, the Bushistas have managed to encourage bigots worldwide and we will have to be dealing with that, we have to be aware of it.

[Bridget Burke]

31. I know a couple of blond, blue-eyed Muslims.

And some black ones, as well. All born in the USA. Plus immigrants from Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, etc.

But Muslims in most European countries are of Arab descent--or recent immigrants. And they are often victims of racism.

[EFerrari]

33. It's difficult to talk about bigotry without stepping into it.

Rhetorical traps.

But, I humbly submit that * has done a stunning job of pushing this filth and will continue to do that as long as it yields $.

We have to be aware of this tactic. We have to be ready to move to support people.

/spellin'

[greyl]

128. No, you ain't gettin it. In fact, you're displaying your own unconscious

racism and religious prejudice. Ironic.

[Leopolds Ghost]

39. Why do you say the cartoons are racist?

This one would be the only intelligent and funny one of the bunch, if it didn't (a) bear no relation to Mohammed's religious beliefs (burkas are a localized cultural tradition that predates Islam) and (b) depict Mohammed as a stereotypical hook-nosed bearded Semite.

And finally, here's your stereotypical bomb-throwing Serbian anarchist straight out of the pages of an 1880s-1930s right wing jeremiad against dark-skinned Jews and Eastern Europeans:



Clearly the artist agrees with Pat Robertson that "Mohammed is a terrorist" -- uniquely for his time period, mind you --

which makes sense, insofar as this is being pushed by "Conservative Christian" publications (which translates roughly into US neo-cons, since there are few genuine evangelicals, left or right, in Europe.)

Free speech? Not an issue for us Americans. We don't need to give a shit over French and German hand-wringing because WE HAVE FREE SPEECH --

we don't just talk about it as an ideal. Does that make the US a better system of government? Not sure, but it's one less issue that the racists can't hide behind. We are "free" to call them out on their bullshit because here in the US there is (supposedly) nothing stopping them from publishing their images (though you can bet that plenty of Americans, even God-Fearing evangelicals, would object to the amateurish, European style racism, and demand a retraction. In the US, money, i.e. cultural norms, like an inherent disgust for propaganda shared by many Americans, is a big restriction on free speech.)

[EFerrari]

48. What a sad day this is. n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

53. Please don't misunderstand, I'm very much appalled by the cartoons

Of course, if it were the US, there would be no question that they have the "right" to publish them, and we could all focus on how appalling they are -- and reminiscent of 1880s red-baiting, 1930s anti-semitism, and 2000s anti-semitism in Muslim papers that the same people pretend to decry. But in Europe they still got some hangups over what "does and does not" constitute free speech in a place where the state has complete sovereignty, rendering the concept of free speech moot, IMHO.

To my mind, as the descendant of German Pietists who fled the draft, I
have to say Europe jumped the shark when they quashed the peasant
revolts and massacred each other (and the Jews) during the Reformation.

[EFerrari]

56. I know little of European history, am mostly versed in English

history where jumping the shark seemed the thing to do in the 16th and 17th.

And this country was founded on the myth that the founders were populating a vacant continent.

Americans can't talk about racism very easily. But progressives are trying to learn. May we learn to do better.

Have you seen mogster's thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x311557

[Leopolds Ghost]

65. Yes, thanks for the link! I sympathize with

the Anabaptists and other radical sects of the time.

Unfortunately, they had the tendency to elect "leaders" who tended to declare stuff like "once you are born again, that's it -- you don't need to worry anymore!" One group that occupied the land in the middle of the Danube, decided to reverse the fall of Adam and Eve. So they found a guy named Adam, and a girl named Eve, and they had Eve apologize to Adam. Then Adam looked up and said "we're sorry, God!"

Then they all took off their clothes and began screwing! Needless to say the desired outcome (immunity to cold and snakes, no more pain in childbirth, everlasting peace, etc.) did not materialize however.

They did have a big peasant revolt in the 1300s in England -- one of the first such incidences, led by seminarians educated by William of Ockham. So there was some truth to the notion of the traditional English distrust of authority compared to the Continent, I guess.

[EFerrari]

69. I read about that one via my Chaucer texts.

My own study was mostly Elizabethan times, when authority found that by centralizing itself, by censoring everything from your hat to your prose, was a good way to keep the public under control.

They also initiated measures that the fascists use today, such as threat levels! They opened and closed the theaters according to their "threat assessment" of the plague. And it was completely up to the Star Chamber to decide if the plague was or wasn't a real threat.

We've been here before. A brazilion times. :)

[fakeshemp]

66. So should they depict Mohammed as a blue-eyed westerner?

But hey, how nice for you that you feel smugly superior to Europeans and their "style" of racism, whatever the hell that's supposed to be. How enlightened you are...

[Leopolds Ghost]

74. There's plenty of racism everywhere. Hypocrisy, on the other hand,

Is rife within the secular upper middle class when it comes to racism.

This is true on the far left as well as the far right.

As for Mohammed, we have no idea what he looked like. Some Early Christians believed that Jesus was actually beardless and blonde-haired, like Alexander the Great. But the consensus view of Jesus as a more realistic, slightly bearded Mediterranean guy in a robe evolved from people who presumably had a better idea of what people in that area looked like.

The cartoonists, on the other hand, not having an effing clue what Mohammed looks like, decided to "play it safe" and go with the stereotype of "non-western, hook-nosed Semitic bomb thrower" that is so easy to apply to generic immigrants from the East over the past, oh, 1000 years.

Did you know that Salahhadin was a Kurd, and therefore partly Caucasian in ancestry? Kurds are not Semitic -- they predate Arabs in Iraq by 2,000 years, as do groups like the Assyrians, Armenians.

Iranians are also a mix of Caucasian, Turkish and regional ancestry with very little Arabic ancestry.

They have their own separate language, culture, and arguably religion (Shia islam is considered heretical in much of the Muslim world, and the difference in beliefs is comparable to Mormons vs. other Christians.)

Sephardic Jews and Palestinians are two of the most closely related peoples on earth. They are both descended from a mediterranean mix of Phoenicians (Greeks), Philistines (Greeks again), Caananites (ongoing settlments 6,000 years old) and of course nomads from the Arabian desert (the original Hebrews). Hebrew and Arab culture and language are related the same way that English and German are related. In general, "Semitic" refers to peoples descended from the Arabian subcontinent: Jewish and Arab.

Iraqi Shiites are proud to consider themselves Arab, because Arabs invaded and settled Mesopotamia 1400 years ago and greatly improved the cultural and economic situation turning an impoverished backwater into one of the greatest nations on Earth at the time, with the most advanced architecture, astronomy and mathematics. However I'd bet you that most "Arab" Iraqis who live in Southern Iraq are flat-out Mesopotamian in ancestry, descended from family who lived there 6,000 years ago. The Elamites and so-called "Marsh Arabs" claim to be the original inhabitants of the Garden of Eden.

Ashkenazi Jews are mostly European (german, Russian, etc.) with a common Palestinian (i.e. Canaanite/Greek/Mediterranean/Arab) ancestry.

They share a religion and cultural beliefs that were later copied and modified by Mohammed in an attempt to craft a universal monotheism in a culture (Arabian Hejaz) that already had a shared Jewish ancestry.

Arabs already shared a common pastoral culture and claimed ancestry with the early Hebrews, so it was easy enough row to hoe, especially since Arabs had access to Christianity and Messianic Judaism and Iranian Zoroastrianism (which served as an inspiration for many Judeo-Christian beliefs) but had not yet converted to anything in particular, so they could "pick and choose."

The Kafir people of Afghanistan claim to be directly descended from the ancient Greeks who settled there under Alexander the Great.

Iranian Zoroastrians who never converted mostly fled to India over the past few centuries, where there are few in number. Similarly, there are groups of decidedly Indian Brahmins who claim to be descended from Christian converts or Jewish refugees from the 1st century AD.

Then there's the dark-skinned Ethiopian and Ugandan Jews, not to mention all the various Asian peoples who have traveled the Arab shipping lanes between the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean for the past 2,000 years.

So, no, I disagree that we "obviously know" what Mohammed looks like without resorting to modern day stereotypes.

[Rainbow gatherer]

141. This is quite accurate

Although Mohammed said Jesus was pale skinned with red hair.

[Jdubb32]

79. Those are some of the funniest cartoons i've seen in a while!

Thanks for the chuckle!

[Hoping4Change]

152. Leopold please direct me to other threads in DU where you took

such strong exemption to DUers utterly contemptuous remarks about freepers, remarks that go way beyond any perceived disparagement you find in the cartoons.

Let me guess. I bet dollars to donuts that you have never taken exception to any disparaging caricaturization of bushbots. Are you telling me that the ignorant freeptards abundant in North America, Europe etc don't have counterparts within the Muslim world? The first cartoon merely points out that every community has their fair share of "morans".

[Tigress DEM]

143. OK. Whether it is "racist" or not it is discriminatory and offensive.

Muhammed was a man who did great things for his people and to be disrespectful towards his memory is to insult all the people who revere his memory.

Whether the cartoonist is making fun of his race, his religion or just Muhammed the man it is a snarky low blow.

Christians would feel angry if anyone messed with Jesus that way, but if there are those out there dense enough to find this amusing that doesn't say much for them as individuals.

Right now the way the world is hurting lashing out in this passive aggressive manner and saying, "It's just a joke/cartoon" isn't helpful.

It's like the bozos who create computer viruses. Don't people have better things to do with their time? Our world is on the brink of Armagedon and people are throwing molatov cocktails on the flames.

Real smart. NOT.

[Hoping4Change]

150. Why are you on a Liberal board?

"Liberalism is an ideology which holds liberty as the primary political value.

Liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on religion and the power of government, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas...

...Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion."

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


Liberalism demands people to have backbone and be willing to have their cherished notions not just scrutinized but also ridiculed. The US of A would not have the Constitution if the founding fathers weren't willing to stand up against religious authorities.

Its beyond appalling that the ideals of the Enlightenment which liberated people from the tyranny of enforced beliefs are being thrown underfoot.

Get a grip. Either you want the freedom or you don't. Have you no idea how offensive MLK was to white bigots? Do you think MLK should have shut the fuck up because racist pigs who were so church-going were offended?



<edited to add link>

[smirkymonkey]

98. Muslims are Arab, Persian, Indonesian, Bosnian, Albanian,

Algerian, Moroccan, Spanish, Bangladeshi, etc.....

In fact, only 18% of all Muslims are actually Arab.

Which "race" exactly is the hostility directed toward?

[SidDithers]

8. I think I had read they were originally published...

in a far-right paper. At least I think that was the case in Denmark.

Sid

[bloom]

9. It's interesting to know that

since someone brought up the question of whether this incitement could have been a Pro-pre-emptive-war PR stunt - to get the hatred going. To get the Muslims looking like crazy religious fanatics, etc.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x314061

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

49. Yeah But It Was An Absurd Theory That Carries No Legitimacy In Reality.

[Igel]

12. The paper was right of center, to be sure.

But the cartoonists ...? The paper merely said it was going to accept and publish such caricatures; the political affiliation of the cartoonists may be known to some, but I haven't heard a peep about it.

The background as to *why* the paper said it would accept the cartoons for publication is an important, and almost entirely, overlooked part of the narrative.

It was a protest against the chilling of free speech.

[greyl]

16. Why do you say it's a right wing paper?

Here's a link to the "in English" section of the online paper: http://www.jp.dk/english_news/tema:fid=11324/

And the cartoons:

http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html

[greyl]

22. Forgive me for not being convinced yet. :) nt

[LSdemocrat]

55. It's not an extreme right paper, but

It's not an extremist paper by any means, but it is comparable to Fox News in this country. These cartoons are actually part of a larger, highly-bigoted anti-immigrant campaign by the right wing.

[greyl]

125. According to M. Sybrandt, it's a liberal paper:

"Is the Jyllands-Posten considered a right-wing newspaper, or a left-wing newspaper to the people in Denmark?"

Neither nor. It`s a liberal paper, considered to have a broad appeal on most readers. Even if it has become a quite big paper it`s still distributed in Jylland only ( the part of Denmark that`s far away from Kopenhagen ) :-)

ms

I happen to know that Sybrandt is a liberal himself, so I trust his opinion. He's from Denmark.

[Hoping4Change]

156. Thanks for that heads up. I had been trying to find out the paper's

leanings myself to no avail. Well that information certainly throws a wrench into the argument of those who want to jump to conclusions. Gee time for some to eat crow.

[me b zola]

62. Yes, the cartoonist is a rw'er

Last night on Jim Lehrer, two guests were discussing this issue. It was stated that the cartoonist is a rw'er who had wanted to intentionally inflame their immigrant population.

[Hatalles]

88. Very disapointed in those DUers defending racism.

[greyl]

129. Who said that? nt

[me b zola]

149. I'm glad you asked

Because when I went to the News Hour's website to look up the transcript, I realized that I was wrong about him saying that it was the cartoonist that was a winger.

The man whom I was losely quoting is STEPHAN RICHTER. Here is what he actually said:

"...the conservative paper wanted to inflame some of the anti-immigrant sentiments in Denmark, of that paper of conservative parties..."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june06/cartoons_02-02.html

[JuniperLea]

2. Good post...

Solid open-minded thinking there...


Violence is never an answer; it lowers you to the level of the person(s) with whom you are angry.

[boobooday]

3. Right on

The answer is to make some cartoons of them. Except that they already look like cartoons to me . . . well, we'll just have to try.

[bucklebone]

4. Right wingers

I don't think you can assume right-wingers made these cartoons. I think everyone is in favor of the social satirist being able to draw or depict anything that they want to.

Have you ever seen the disgusting editorial cartoons in Hustler magazine. Distasteful to say the least, but worthy of causing riots?? I don't think so.

Freedom of speech rules over your right not to be offended. Let's be adults now.

[ck4829]

7. See post 5

[Bridget Burke]

13. Probably because they were targeted at the Muslim minorities...

In Oh-So-White European cities. And the Right Wingers are the ones stirring up racial & religious hatred.

I've seen Hustler--briefly. Anyone opening Hustler knows what to expect. When will those cartoons appear on the front page of your local paper?

And I've seen some oddball art that many would find offensive. But I've been known to visit Alternate Spaces (AKA condemned warehouses) & have even seen Performance Art. If you go off the beaten track, an open mind & a strong stomach are recommended.

Death threats go too far, but people DO have a right to be offended. Crying "Wah, Wah, those people don't like my stuff" is not very adult. If you create controversy, accept the results.

[fujiyama]

118. People hhave a righht to be offended

but they do not have a righht to stifle others' speech because of that. It's why the ACLU allows scum like the KKK to march.

The caartoons seems amaturish and stupid. They aarer in poor taste (though I did like the one where he has it written "Hey wait, it's just som Dane cartoonist").

If someone is angry thoughh, the best way to voice that is by writing letters to the editor, arranging boycotts against thte advertiseers, and nonviolen proteest - not rioting.

[bloom]

6. While I don't in any way condone

any resulting violence - I think there are a lot of people here who just assume that the rest of the world has the same laws that we do.


Instead of:

International legal provisions

International law encourages states to introduce legislation which penalizes incitement to hatred. There are two main instruments which require this of states: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) at Article 20 and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=1129

And I don't think it can be denied that these cartoons amounted to incitement of violence on religious grounds.

[Igel]

14. It's backwards, however.

I incite violence by calling people to violence, and incite violence against a group by encouraging violence against the group.

The Danish paper didn't incite Danes to attack Muslims or Arabs, and violence against Allah or Muhammed seems a bit far-fetched. And I have yet to hear a claim that the paper was inciting Arabs or Muslims to attack Danes. I did read about the initial call for the cartoons, and the reason for it before the cartoons were published. But who cares about context when we can Defend the Revolting Oppressed?

Meanwhile, I see signs and hear speech advocating religious and national hatred, constituting incitement to violence and hostility against Danes.

I'd like to say that I hear more outcry over the actual advocacy and incitement of violence, rather than the defense of free speech against the chilling that some Muslims exerted in the name of (a parody of) tolerance. But I don't know that I could make such a statement.

[bloom]

24. If it turns out

that WWIII got started because some right-wing Bush-loving nuts who owned a newspaper in Denmark published cartoons that they knew would incite violence - I suppose people will debate - who incited the violence - the Newspaper people or the Muslim leaders.

I suppose you could say both.

For all I know - BushCo and the CIA paid the paper to do it.

It's the right-wing nuts who are the ones who wanted the war in the first place and THEY are the ones who have been on a campaign to inflame Muslims for more than 5 years - but esp. since they figured they got the green light from 9/11....

Anyway - I will blame BushCo and his right-wing cohorts. You can blame whoever you want.

[Hoping4Change]

46. Well said. Its shocking that DUers are letting Muslim zealotry off

the hook. Muslims who are going cataleptic IMO are like wife beaters who claim that their wives provoked them and are therefore to blame for their out of control behaviour.

[Hatalles]

87. There is no excuse for death threats, violence, etc.

But there is nothing wrong with the anger and outrage over these cartoons. IMHO, no one should play apologist for the insensitive and beligerent editors/cartoonists behind this who've abused the "free speech" card to take potshots at Muslims.

[Hoping4Change]

91. Where does it say free speech caters to sensitivites. Free speech

is protected in the American Constitution because it is offensive, because powers that be, whether political or theological, want to shut people up.

[smirkymonkey]

99. So are Muslims going to apologize for the virulent Anti-Jewish

cartoons that are so ubiquitous throughout the Islamic media?

[fakeshemp]

144. I wonder if certain other posters

Would be willing to condemn the Islamic world as "corrupt, senile and hateful" (not words I'd ever use in that context I hasten to add, but words used by another in this thread to describe northern europe) on the basis of such material - which is, as you say ubiquitous. The fundie apologists really do have the use of double standards down to a fine art, it seems.

[javadu]

30. Wow ---- I did not know that was international law

This sounds like the international version of sedition laws. People should be able to write what they want, wherever they want to write it, about whomever they write about. Remember, the ACLU has partnered with the KKK before, and they were correct in doing so. Personally, I am not crying any tears about religious fundamentalists getting their panties in a wad. I think fundamentalism of all kinds is threat to peace --- whether it is Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. People have the right to practice their religion, but they don't have the right to impose their religion on others. Demanding a stop to publishing cartoons is tantamount to imposing their religious sensibilities on all of us.

[bobbieinok]

34. it's vs the law in Germany to deny publically that the Holocaust happened

also in Canada I think

that's why David Irving gets arrested..... and Zuendel in Canada

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/z/zundel-ernst/

this is a Jewish site that watches deniers and counters each lie

there are several pro-Zuendel sites and pro-Irving sites

[Hoping4Change]

47. I think poster is way off the mark b/c nothing in the cartoon

incites violence. As igil points out it is Muslims who are inciting violence.

[bloom]

75. I think it was intentional on the part of the newspaper & the cartoonists.

"It was stated that the cartoonist is a rw'er who had wanted to intentionally inflame their immigrant population." post #62



Just like flushing the Koran in the toilet. It was just a book. Yeah - and the people who did it expected the reaction that they got. Just like now. And then they can sit back and say - "but look who the bad guys are". It's all about making the Muslims into the bad guys.

Of course if you already think Muslims are the "bad guys" - this will just reinforce your idea.

I happen to think that BushCo are the bad guys - the provocateurs - and that they are getting a lot of help from various quarters.

[Hoping4Change]

96. So when a guy beats his wife he gets off the hook because his

defense is that he couldn't control himself?

[bloom]

101. it's the Muslims

that are in the minority in Denmark.

So a better analogy might be that the Muslims are the abused wife who is fighting back against the abusive husband.


Or if it were a bar fight - between the bully (the majority culture) against the weakling - the jury might say - heh - he was asking for it. (They - juries - often do in those cases.)


And in the larger world - it is the Muslims more than other ethnic groups that are under attack - esp. by the US - so that adds to the whole thing. The neo-cons think all of this strife is just great - btw - it serves their purposes.

[Hoping4Change]

42. It definitely can be denied that the cartoons were an incitement

of violence.

[xultar]

10. Agreed. Great post.

[Vinnie From Indy]

11. I am cynical enough to believe that the flap over these comics is merely

another BushCo psyops campaign. What better way to amp up the fear, hatred and religious intolerance and violence all over the world than to start Operation Smear The Prophet AND make sure it gets air play?! The Islamic world gets to demonstrate en masse and become even more supsicious of the west and BushCo gets to use it's media mouthpiece to scare the bejeesus out of people by showing those crazy Muslims.

I have no dispute with anyone's right to free speech, but I also have the right to guess at the motives.

[Igel]

17. You also have the right to investigate

why the paper said it was accepting such cartoons and publishing them.

The source materials are still in cyberspace.

[Karenina]

19. Bingo.

[Warpy]

15. I thought they were tacky, too,

and that anyone who goes that far out of his way to offend other people owes them an apology.

I posted a Christian alternative earlier, a rather mild one, but we atheists can come up with some pretty offensive stuff, too, if it'll make Christians realize what a big deal this is.

In any case, the cartoonist who drew them and the newspaper editors who thought they were funny enough to run all told you a lot more about themselves than they did about you or about Islam.

Pity them.

[liberalitch]

18. What's that I hear? ..... a voice of reason? FINALLY!!!!!!

Thanks for saying so......

[Igel]

20. Kudos. n/t

[Malikshah]

25. An important point some may be missing about this fracas

I'm not Muslim, I just study/teach/give lectures about the medieval and modern Muslim world (hence my DU name)

This whole free speech argument, to my mind, is missing the point. The cartoons are examples of pure and unadulterated bigotry. In another thread I came up with examples of vile cartoons that in all but a few fanatical minds would be viewed as extremely anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, etc.

I could have been more vile--but I held back for fear that I might start a firestorm of calls on DU to have me banned for "spreading such filth." Accusations would spew forth that I was taking this opportunity to spread anti-christian, anti-semitic hatred.

The point is that these cartoons are unacceptable in today's world. It's not an issue of free speech to incite hatred and bigotry unchallenged. Go forth-- do it, but to then clamor about your right to free speech when the "slings and arrows" come forth is bullshit.

[EFerrari]

29. Exactly. Thank you for giving a more informed opinion than

I could.

This is part of the bigoted right wing campaign.

Let's call it by its name.

Beth

[javadu]

32. I Can't Tell You How Much I Disagree With This

Free speech is not missing the point --- it is at the center of the whole fracas. Free speech should be the right of everyone, even if they disagree with you. If it is not, then only those with power get to define bigotry, hatred, and filth.

[EFerrari]

35. It's a balancing act, for sure.

A friend of mine tells this joke: "I'm not allowed to burn leaves but the Klan's right to burn crosses is protected speech. So, now when I need to burn leaves I make them into the form of a cross and burn them on my neighbor's lawn."

:(

[fujiyama]

120. Actually technically, I don't believe it would be legal

to burn a cross on someone else's lawn. First of all that's tresspassing and I assume it would be vandalism as well. Also, such acts are inherantly acts of intimidation aand harrasement and can be taken as threats. In theh cartoons, as idiotic as they may be, theeree is arguably some social and/or political satire.

Now, I'm not sure, how the law would see it if someone burned a cross on their own lawn in plain site of a neighbor. That's a much trickier line.

[bobbieinok]

37. isn't this situation close to 'free speech' vs 'can't cry fire in crowded

theater'??

this then raises question, doesn't RW think there is a 'fire', ie extreme danger from Muslims - therefore anything and everything is permitted?

and others that there's no 'fire' but there is a very nervous crowd of people who are ready to react at once so DON'T add to the problem?

[Leopolds Ghost]

43. What is this "free speech" in Europe you speak of?

Feel free to continue to defend Europeans' right to free speech -- it doesn't exist and it won't exist unless sovereignty undergoes an upheaval in European countries, where the State has complete sovereignty and in most circumstances there is either an official state religion, or a de facto state secularism and laws against "hate speech" that offends the delicate sensibilities of these same white folks.

What has become of Northern European culture that they could become so corrupt, senile, and hateful as to cast about for an enemy to explain their own insecurity about religion and free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of privacy and assembly, concepts they refuse to enforce? Turncoat "secular liberals" who are liberal in name only, are leading the charge. I'm beginning to understand why various branches of my family -- some of them Pietists & conscientious objectors -- left Europe.

The Thatcherite, monkeylike aping of American values that Danish and other "Christian" Neoconservatives engage in is merely a smokescreen for an agenda that has everything to do about immigration. At least here in the US, we don't beat around the bush when it comes to attitudes toward Hispanic immigration.

[fakeshemp]

142. Northern European culture is "corrupt, senile and hateful"??

Wow. Pat Robertson eat your heart out. You have ZERO credibility in lecturing others about what constitutes bigotry.

[CJCRANE]

44. Even when there is freedom of speech

there are still things which, though allowed to be said, are frowned upon in mainstream society.

So, whilst I accept that these cartoonists have a right to publish their cartoons I believe that they shouldn't be acceptable in a mainstream newspaper (specifically the bomb-turban one. I mean let's face it, there are a billion muslims in the world and implying that they're all bombers should be beyond the pale in polite society).

[Hoping4Change]

52. Hear. Hear. nt

[Malikshah]

102. I *can* tell you how much I disagree with you.

Inciting hatred and bigotry has it's consequences-- if one cannot handle said consequences, then one should not incite hatred and bigotry.

It's called taking responsibility for one's actions and not whining when one's actions incite riots and the like--especially when one knows when one's actions will do so.

This is NOT stifling Free Speech-- it IS demanding accountability and personal responsibility.

[DemExpat]

104. hmmmmmm, and those who riot and threaten with

barbaric punishments have no accountability and responsibilities themselves for what they reap from what they sow (in inciting even more hatred and bigotry from others towards their beliefs and style?)

DemEx

[Malikshah]

111. As ever-- folks will seek to incite mutual hatred

I don't recall supporting riots. Nor those that do. I do, however, believe that inciting them is a heinous act, and should they occur one must stand up and take responsibility for inciting them and NOT hide behind the free speech defense.

[fujiyama]

121. In this case it's arguble

that it isn't really inciteful. Offensive? Almost definetely...but inciteful is harder to provee even if there are laws against such a thing. He never paint all Muslims as terrrorists though it does mock their prophet. I mean, it's painting Muhammad as a terrorrist - so what do fanatics do? They act like terrorists. Thehy throw a riot, and resort to violence. Instead they should haave proved the cartoonist wrong, written a million letters to the editor, and boycotted advertisers of the paper.

Now, as for 'taking responsibility' what should the cartoonist do? I suppose issuing an apology would be fit. A simple editorial would have been faar more effective thaan a silly, amaturishh cartoon. And the paper may bee wise to firee him (though we all got pretty pissed post 9/11 when certain journalists and cartoonists were fired).

While you may not support those rioting, you are clearly excusing their behavior. I'm sorry, but I view such behavior as unacceptable. Unless someone is clearly threatening you, you have no right to violence.

[Hoping4Change]

123. I disagree that "they painting Muhammad as a terrorrist".

You are assuming there is only one Muhammed. Granted only one lived and died but since his death there seems to be more than one. So are you referring to the Muhammad Muslim zealots claim as their own who according to the zealots condones violence or are you referring to Muhammad revered by other Muslims as a man of peace?

edit for spelling

[fujiyama]

124. Hell I don't even know

I got the impression it was mocking the prophet...I find the cartoons themselves kinda dumb. It might be the mistranslation, but I don't find them especially clever. There was one that was kind of funny because it's somewhat self depracating.

But, I'm with you regarding thteh violent reaction. It's absolutely inexcusable.

[greyl]

134. Right. I think it's an appeal to RATIONAL muslims to influence

the few extreme fanatics in their midst.

The recurring theme in the cartoons speaks to the hypocrisy of violence in the name of peaceful religion.
I don't see the artworks as being racist or against Islam in general at all.

[Malikshah]

135. That's where it is in the eyes of the beholders-- and one has

to accept that one's actions can be seen as inciteful.

It's called thinking outside the box, empathy, what have you.

[Hoping4Change]

155. Give me a break. You are confusing provocation with incitement.

The cartoons provoke outrage but they are not inciting violence. Muslims who are rioting are inciting violence.

[Malikshah]

161. Wow-- parse much?

Cartoons depicting the central figure of a belief system as a bomb-wielding terrorist perpetuates the stereotype of his co-religionists as violent (and the nature of the religion inherently violent) which in turn dehumanizes him and his co-religionists-- which makes it easier to "kill them all and let God sort em out"

The fact that *this* needs to be explained speaks volumes either about the level of education that is needed on the subject, or something more insidious

Get over your semantic BS.

[CJCRANE]

40. Very good point.

The cartoonists are entitled to their freedom of speech...but these cartoons are hate speech and should not be acceptable in mainstream newspapers.

If the cartoon ridiculed a Jewish prophet (eg. instead of Mohamed substitute Moses with a bomb on his head) they would be denigrated as vile ant-semitism and totally unacceptable in mainstream society. To my mind, the muslim minoritiis in Europe, and the one billion muslims in the rest of the world deserve the same respect.

[Hoping4Change]

59. Denigrating an religious figure is not the same as denigrating a people.

But more to the point is humour denigrating? Only people who are full of themselves dislike being poked fun at.

[CJCRANE]

61. See post #45 nt

[Hoping4Change]

76. Its not the same at all. The crux of the matter is whether or not

religious figures should be treated with kit gloves by people outside the faith. Lets put Islam aside. Lets consider Jim Jones and his nasty little cult or the weaselly despicable fascist Moon. What say you if the cartoon depicted Moon in ways his followers felt were offensive. Are you telling me that you would be up in arms?


(btw it would be over my dead body that I would refer to Moon as reverend even though he and his followers regard him as the second coming.)

[CJCRANE]

81. So is it acceptable

to print a cartoon of Moses with a bomb on his head? (in a mainstream newspaper).

[Hoping4Change]

86. I interprete the cartoon as a metaphor

for Muslim fanatics who have wrapped themselves up in religious piety. The proverbial wolf in sheeps clothing.

[CJCRANE]

132. Ok

so it's a metaphor, but would a mainstream newspaper get away with using the same metaphor against Jews?

No, because it's become accepted that race-baiting is not acceptable in mainstream culture.

[Hoping4Change]

157. Have you read anything by Norman Finklestein?

In The Holocaust Industry he argues that

"The Holocaust has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world's most formidable military powers , with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a 'victim' state, and the most successful ethnic group in the U.S. has likewise acquired victim status."

So what your telling me is that because Jews in the U.S. have been able to damper free speech and therefore limit criticism of Israel, Muslims and every other group who can present themselves as victims should have the same deference granted to them. To that I say no way. (And need I add that I am not going to admit to being anti-semitic because I share Finklestein's contempt for Israel.)

Jews want everyone to treat Israel as a sacred cow, to be treated with kit gloves, to be beyond reproach. Do you see any similarity between that mind set and the mindset of Muslims with regard to their prophet? I certainly do.

Everyone has a right to have their own sacred cows but no one has the right to expect the world to fall into line.

[Hoping4Change]

51. Its all about free speech and free speech to pious people is an outrage.

[EFerrari]

57. Unless it is all about racists exploiting free speech.

Then, we have a problem. :(

[Hoping4Change]

60. The only way you can exploit free speech is to say "go kill so and so."

And the only ones doing that are in this context are Muslims.

[EFerrari]

64. No, my fellow DUer. Not at all.

You can also portray a group of people as a threat that should be attacked.

And who is doing that?

We have been here before. Please, let us be aware, let us be careful.

[Hoping4Change]

70. Where in the cartoon is this group of people group of people and

where in the cartoon is the message that they should be attacked?

[EFerrari]

72. Let me ask you a question. What do you make of

a turban with a fuse?

Please.

[Hoping4Change]

78. I interprete it as a metaphor for Muslim fanatics who have wrapped

themselves up in religious piety, a piety which masks their real nature.

[EFerrari]

80. Metaphor? Nice try. This is blatant racism. n/t

[greyl]

133. I'd like to see your take on each of the cartoons.

So far, you've only been saying right-wing paper, right-wing artist, and racism. But you haven't shown any awareness of evidence to support what you're saying.

Can you show that you understand the intended meanings of each of the cartoons beyond the all too easy and reactionary "Racism!" ?

edit: as I said before, it's a liberal paper according to one real liberal source.

[Midlodemocrat]

63. Sincere quesion here.

From reading here and other blogs today, I am getting the impression that the uproar is because Mohammed is not to be 'portrayed' in human form.

Is this correct, or am I missing something else?

Thanks for your reply.

[Yupster]

73. I believe that is a correct Muslim belief

however, I wouldn't think that should have any sway with non-Muslims. I wouldn't think Muslims would want to influence non-Muslims to follow their religious rules.

[EFerrari]

77. On it's face, that is what I'm understanding.

But, there is a whole 'nother current that is much uglier than that.

[fakeshemp]

146. Religion is an ideology, and this is a free speech argument

It should not enjoy any greater protection from criticism, ridicule, abuse or insult than any other ideology. These cartoons are 100% acceptable in my view, irrespective of whether you or I like or approve of them. I have said exactly the same about art ridiculing Christ in the past. Restricting criticism or insult of Islam or Christianity is no better than restricting criticism or insult of conservatism - another ideological construct with a fringe of fanatical, authoritarian devotees.

[Hoping4Change]

160. AMEN to that. But hold your horses you sound like someone who

doesn't place God beyond human reason. You sound like some kind of true blue liberal, like the child of the Enlightment, like the framers of the Constitution. Hey you sound like somebody who belongs at DU! A big hello and welcome. :bounce:


edit spelling

[Hoping4Change]

159. Gee where do you study and teach? From the sounds of it probably

a Madrassa. No serious scholar resorts to the hyperbole scattered throughout your post, er, let me qualify that. No serious scholar other than one schooled at a Madrassa resorts to the hyperbole scattered throughout your post.

[Malikshah]

162. Wow-- this is just too good. You used the "M" word

But, my dear, you spelled it wrong. It it Madrasa, coming from the triconsonantal root-- D-R-S -- meaning "to study." "Madrasa" = place of study. They developed as "state-sponsored universities" sometime in or around the 11th century in Baghdad. Probably, the most famous of them was the Nizamiyya, founded by the great wazir, Nizam al-Mulk (d. 1092)--the first and most famous victim of the Assassins.

The fact that your post would insinuate that, I, a scholar who focuses their efforts on the studying the region, would be a product of the later incarnation of the madrasas (a la the virulent Wahhabi style so ubiquitous in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) -- all that based on my previous messages... Wow. Bigoted much? (Yeah, that last question will get this banned no doubt, but your reply was just too priceless to pass up.)

You are sooooooo far off the mark it'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Simply put-- someone who is educated, sometimes somewhat articulate, and has strong feelings about an issue is now be labeled a product of the modern madrasa. Wow... just wow. Pathetic.

Some folks should be ashamed. (And, no, I'm not one of them.) :)

[Hoping4Change]

163. I hate to quibble but if this spelling of madrassa is good enough for

DR. TARIQ RAHMAN Professor of Linguistics and South Asian Studies National Institute of Pakistan Studies Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad, then it is good enough for me.

http://www.himalmag.com/2004/february/essay.htm

[Malikshah]

164. Quibble all you want-- He is incorrect as well

Based on the classical arabic spelling. Madrasa-- a place of study-- there is no double "s". He needs to go back to his "Lisan al-Arab" and Lane's Arab-English lexicon.

Knowledge is power. :)

[Behind the Aegis]

36. Sincere question

Why do you find them "highly offensive?' Do you find them all "highly" offensive or are some worse than others? Are they offensive solely because they physically represent Mohammad?

The one with the the bomb in the turban, I find that offensive. The one with the Arab, with the symbols of Islam making up part of his face...I just don't get that one.

Thanks.

[bobbieinok]

38. me too....some I just don't get

[CJCRANE]

41. My guess is that the one with the bomb

is the one that tipped the balance and made it obvious that this was an exercise in hate speech.

The same cartoon with a Jewish prophet would make it obvious that this is hate speech.

[Leopolds Ghost]

45. Google "bomb throwing anarcho/socialist/liberal Jews" for similar cartoons

Especially from the 1880s to 1930s.

So numerous many of them made several of my Western history textbooks in high school as examples of the political obsessions of the day: red-baiting, anti-semitism, romantic anti-intellectual hostility towards the industrial classes, and of course, opposition to massive Eastern European immigration.

(You may notice the Allies conveniently fixed that problem after 1945 by divvying up vast numbers of "displaced persons" into population groups and resettling them in the appropriate national boundaries, facilitated by giving back all the land Germany had taken over the years.)

There were very few actual bomb throwing Eastern Europeans running around, but many of them conveniently had unpronounceable names and made such a great excuse for an anti-terrorism (and anti-Semitism) campaign much longer and more successful than the one currently being waged in response to a much more massive threat.

I'm waiting for some genius to release the "Protocols of the Elders of Qom" through a plausibly deniable "radical muslim" source...

How soon we forget.

[Leopolds Ghost]

50. For that matter, just look at all the crypto-fascist anti-Semitism

In the modern day Middle East, especially in political cartoons.

Apparently the European version of free speech is "we should be congratulated for doing and saying whatever they get away with
doing and saying."

Since there's no right to free speech per se in Europe, it's a question of censure, pure and simple. For speech to be free in Europe, it must be beyond censure. Most folks never bought into the whole "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" stuff. They only bring it up when it's convenient. I mean, it's an AMERICAN law.

[CJCRANE]

58. You're right.

Racism is wrong whether it's anti-semitism in Middle Eastern media or Islamophobia in European newspapers, both should be called out and criticised.

One other point that the RW in particular seem to forget about "freedom of speech" - the other side have the right to be repulsed and offended and disagree with what you say.

[EFerrari]

67. Their move is to say, "You are weak on security and you are

unpatriotic."

Surely, DU is to aware to fall for that crap.

[fakeshemp]

139. Again with the self-congratulatory swipes at "Europeans"

But in so far as their is a "European verison of free speech", it's not abotu being "congratulated for doing and saying anything", it's simply about being allowed to do so, even if it offends fundies and their apologists.

[EFerrari]

54. Yes. And it's sort of dizzying that people are not seeing that. n/t

[ck4829]

93. They feel denigrating

I don't feel as though it's the worst thing in the world, but I just don't like it.

[Behind the Aegis]

108. Thank you.

I can appreciate your not liking them and feeling your religion, and yourself, have been denigrated. I do know that Mohammad is not supposed to be depicted, the same way I don't write the name of G-d. But, as i said, some them, I didn't even understand, so I don't understand why they are offensive.

[Hoping4Change]

68. Sorry to say but I see Muslim hypocrisy by the bucketful.

Mohammed is to be revered (or else) but Muslim zealots didn't blink twice about destroying the Bamiyan buddhas.

[EFerrari]

71. Well, let's all run out and protest all those Muslim-owned

media outlets. :sarcasm:

Geezus.

Nobody here is condoning that destruction or establishing a double standard.

But you seem to be having a real problem recognizing racism when it bites you.

The Taliban were horrible. Now tell me how you generalize from that horrible regime to ALL MUSLIMS?

[Hoping4Change]

84. There is nothing racist about the cartoon in question. Nada. Zip.

The cartoon points out that appearances are deceiving. Just because Taliban taking their fashion cues from the 14th century and end up looking like what people imagine Mohammed must have looked like it doesn't mean that they have any of his goodness - the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.

Religion is a two edged sword. Its dangerous. Its been used throughout history to gain control over people. Its used to maintain conformity and the status quo. Humour is really the only thing that really thwarts fanaticism. Your response to the cartoon belies a degree of fanaticism.

[EFerrari]

85. That's hilarious.

My husband and I are among the most sought after comedy writers in the United States.

Sorry, nice try.

:rofl:

[Hoping4Change]

89. So where's the wit?

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

90. Where's the retainer?

:shrug:

[Hoping4Change]

94. like I said where's the wit.

[greyl]

126. I think it's hopeless. :)

Some people just don't have a sophisticated sense of humor, satire, or social commentary.

You've made good points and explained your views solidly.

[Hoping4Change]

153. I so agree about the lack of a sophisticated sense of sense.

The posters who are so in a knot are so damned literal. I want to stand up and scream. Don't people realize that literalism is at the heart of all religious fundementalism and that by their denouncements they play into the hands of all fundies? Doesn't the fact the bushco shares their disapproval snap them out of their stupor?

[ck4829]

95. Destroying those Buddhas was horrible

That was a very awful thing they did when they demolished those beautiful Buddha statues.

I am a Muslim, but I am 100% Pluralistic, and I believe that destroying those statues was an attack on the very beauty and peace that religion, any religion, can create.

[Hoping4Change]

97. But their destuction didn't inflame Muslims, they weren't out rioting

even though the Buddhas sitting silently in peace for thousands of years in the midst of a barren and seemingly god forsaken land were more representative of Mohammed than a trivial cartoon.

Do you think that if the Buddhas were statues of Mohammed the response would have been the same? No because IMO so much of this has to do with ego.

[ck4829]

100. I know, and it irritates me

I don't like to brag, but I sometimes think that I am a one-of-a-kind Muslim, I have yet to find a Muslim who is as Liberal as I am, that's not to say that all Muslims are Conservative or like that. (*Personally*, I know there are several DU'ers who are Muslim, they are probably just as Liberal as I am.)

It would be nice and very interesting to wake up tomorrow and see Liberalism and Pluralism all over the place in the Islamic Community.

But, back to what you said, I agree with you.

IT is about Ego, and I'll go even further.

IT is about Selfishness, Exclusivism, and Bigotry.

[Hoping4Change]

109. With your openness and geniality you would be a one-of-a-kind

person in any group of people. Perhaps it is my bias but I believe such personal attributes reveal an authentic spirituality. If everyone who claimed to be religious displayed such attributes they'd all have my deepest respect.

Have you read Ziauddin Sardar's "Desperately Seeking Paradise: Journeys of a Skeptical Muslim"?

(though,as reviewer,Peter Gordon cautions, "The subtitle is somewhat misleading, perhaps deliberately. Sardar is skeptical about just about everything except Islam itself: on that, he is committed."

Sardar who writes for the New Statesman is liberal to the core of his being and therefore can't not use his intellect to investigate his faith. He presents a very different face of Islam.

http://www.asianreviewofbooks.com/arb/article.php?article=548

[ck4829]

136. No, I have not read it, yet

I'll have to pick it up, thank you for telling me about it.

[Jdubb32]

82. Well, the telling of jokes is an art of its own,

and it always rises from some emotional threat. The best jokes are dangerous, and dangerous because they are in some way truthful. (Kurt Vonnegut)

[EFerrari]

83. Sure, and as a professional comedy writer, I say

there is a line between satire and racism. It shifts, it's not well defined. And that's as it should be.

But, there is a line that the most edgy comedians will not cross.

[Jdubb32]

92. Indeed their is a line between satire and racism,

but an edgy comedian is Daring, provocative, or trend-setting.
Pushing the lines to excite controversy.

[DemExpat]

107. So, Beth, you do not condemn the cartoonists for their underestimating

this shifting line? Unless you feel that they did it deliberately.......
I am not convinced yet......insensitive, yes, but wanting to start a war and receive personal death threats?

It shifts, it's not well defined. And that's as it should be.

DemEx

[DemExpat]

103. The tragedy as I see it at this moment (my view is developing!)

is that this is a conflict between a newspaper and Muslims the world over, while the response of many protesting Muslims is to condemn the people of Denmark (and those who support the independence and freedom of the press) and its government...along with demands for censorship and unspeakable punishments.

My admitted bigotry is one against all fundy religious practices - and their fanatic attempts to force their beliefs on others. (US Christian fascists as well)

I need to feel that I can mock or criticise any religion and religious figure whom I choose without death threats. Yes, I realize that this is not "nice", but I accept this as part of our established democracies, and I do not wish to kill those who hurt/disgust me with their offences against me either.

Some moderate Muslim commentators here say that the Muslim hysterics are way out of line - that threats to Western countries/people are only fuelling more distrust and hatred, and that freedom of speech although possibly offensive is the mechanism that protects minorities in the first place!

What I see as fuzzy is where to draw the line with hate speech.......and know that the world we live in now seems to me to be filling up to the brim with hate, censorship and control instead of understanding and love.

I hope that somehow through this experience some level of understanding can be reached from all viewpoints, but I don't have much faith in this right now. :-(
Hopefully this will bring it out in the open instead of simering under the surface as it has been in the past years here in Europe.

DemEx

[RPM]

105. where can i see the cartoons

no one seems to be publishing them....

[RPM]

106. this whole thread is further proof that religion is bullshit

enjoy your dumb ass club.

[dchill]

110. Proof? No...

Really compelling evidence? Yes. There is no proof either way, unfortunately.

[Malikshah]

112. Unfortunately it goes far beyond religion

All religions influence one's cultural identity which is tied by many to one's self-identity. To smear the center of one's identity in such a way has an impact far beyond one's stated religion.

[Hoping4Change]

114. Being shaken to one's core can be liberating.

[JCMach1]

116. So having a cross burned on your lawn would be liberating

That would be a rough equivalent...

[Hoping4Change]

117. There is no moral equivalency between this cartoon and a cross burning.

What has been inflamed are egos.

[JCMach1]

127. So a direct assault on your race and culture is not a moral

equivalent?

[riderinthestorm]

158. You don't have to look at a cartoon

You don't even have to open the paper or buy the products.

A cross burning on your lawn is very different than a cartoon published in a paper!

You HAVE to deal with the fire, the destruction of your lawn, the ashes etc. A cross burning is an in-your-face-act that can't be simply ignored. You can't see the difference between these two? Really?

[JCMach1]

113. The media is also distorting the reaction to this in the Middle-east

Sure people are angry and quite willing to boycott. And yes, the same players in other countries burn a few flags (i.e. the fringe).

The MSM is using this to setup the Muslim bogeyman once again.

What really miffs me is how many DUers are buying it...!

[CJCRANE]

131. Yes, something's afoot...

the cartoons were first published last September in a Danish newspaper but seemingly didn't cause much reaction...they were then re-published earlier this month in a Norwegian newspaper...and now very recently in 10 European newspapers...

If at first you don't succeed...

[genie_weenie]

137. just asking

Should Danes get upset about their FLAG being burned? After all it has a cross on it...

[fakeshemp]

138. Good question! n/t

[fujiyama]

115. I agree completely

I understand hhow someone could be offendeed by tthis. The cartoons are at their heart inflammatory. I don't even haave anything against someone that boycottst the aadvertisers. In fact, I would also encourage all those in Muslim nations pissed at the cartoon to write to the paper expreessing their aanger. Nonviolent protest is always welcome.

But I find rioting and death threats to be well over crossing the line and inexcusable. It shows a complete insecurity with your religion.

[RPM]

119. "they"???

nice...

[fujiyama]

122. They referring to the cartoons

I'll edit thaht to make it more clear.

[RPM]

148. that's a little more

clear
:)

[upi402]

130. Religious zealots these days, I mean really!

:nopity:
They can want to control what goes on in their homes and mosques, but the rest of the world should not be controlled by people who beleive in fairy tales and religions.

[fakeshemp]

140. A fair - and laudable - reaction.

Thank you for it.:thumbsup:

[channa18]

145. OUCH !!!! Danish cartoonists fear for their lives

more freightening here

TWELVE Danish cartoonists whose pictures sparked such outcry have gone into hiding under round-the-clock protection, fearing for their lives.



The cartoonists, many of whom had reservations about the pictures, have been shocked by how the affair has escalated into a global “clash of civilisations”. They have since tried, unsuccessfully, to stop them being reprinted.

A spokesman for the cartoonists said: “They are in hiding around Denmark. Some of them are really, really scared. They don’t want to see the pictures reprinted all over the world. We couldn’t stop it. We tried, but we couldn’t.”

Mogens Blicher Bjerregaard, president of the Danish Union of Journalists, told The Times: “They are keeping a very low profile. They are very concerned about their safety. They feel a big responsibility on their shoulders. It’s blown up so big. It is tough for them.”

The cartoonists’ names were originally printed in the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten. Flemming Rose, the paper’s cultural editor, invited 25 newspaper cartoonists to draw a picture of Muhammad “how they saw him”, after a children’s author complained that cartoonists would only dare illustrate a book he was writing on the life of Muhammad if they could be anonymous. Twelve cartoonists responded, had their pictures printed in September, and were paid 800 Danish krone (£73) each.

[fakeshemp]

147. That's really sad.

:(

[Benfea]

151. You got it exactly right, my friend.

The fact that Bush is siding with the Muslim extremists on this one and declaring that the cartoons should never have been published tells you all you need to know.

[Yollam]

154. Thanks for your post.

As an atheist who sees organized religion as a form of mass mind control, I'm offended by every church, synagogue and mosque I see.

Does that give me the right to burn them down? No.

DOes it give me the right to stand on a street corner and scream about it?

Yes, but I don't really see the point.

I also don't see the point of all the uproar in the ME.

If I were a cartoonist, all those histrionics would just make me that much more eager to draw MORE Mohammed caricatures.

I see such Islamic extremism as IDENTICAL to the fundie insanity Bush encourages among his stupider followers.

They are both worthy of ridicule.

It could also be mentioned that Mohammed was a warrior, not some peacenik yogi, so depicting him with a bomb-turban is not all that far off.