French editor is sacked over Mohammad cartoon

[Turley]

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=168242006

A FRENCH newspaper editor who printed a front-page cartoon featuring the Prophet Mohammad has been sacked for offending Muslims.

Jacques Lefranc was dismissed by the owner of France Soir, as his paper became embroiled in a row between Muslims and the European press.

Muslim countries have imposed sanctions against Denmark after a Danish paper first printed Mohammad cartoons.

[ugarte]

1. You don't see many cartooons ridiculing Jesus in this country

I suspect a lot of editors here would face the same fate.

[MrPrax]

2. Yeah sure...

Lots more at Lots in Google Images

I wonder why the US press isn't participating in the cartoon protest--I guess they don't like press freedom...

[ugarte]

3. Ha! Try publishing that one in the Bible Belt...

The f word alone would get you canned.

[MrPrax]

4. It was published...

in the Bible Belt...Harper's is a national magazine!!

I guess they don't scrutinize 'liberal' publications as closely as they used to listen to Led Zep records...backwards.

Yeah...more than the turntable is backwards...

[lumpy]

19. Harpers has much circulation in

the Bible Belt? Doubt it.

[pitohui]

32. doubt away, it just shows your ignorance

we even have libraries where it is put on the public shelves, imagine that!

do ya'll have indoor toilets up there yet?

[lumpy]

38. Sorry to have offended you.

Mea culpa. Yes we do have indoor toilets.

[Solo_in_MD]

8. This has bothered me too

Here in the US it has been the radio hosts at WMAL and KFI that have been targeted by CAIR. Everyone seems to be pussyfooting around Muslim sensibilities, which in practice today is more pernicious than the Christian fundies. Don't hear much about here at DU either, which is disappointing.

[saskatoon]

91. pussyfooting!?

Do any of you remember Jimmy Durante? One of the things he said that is so pertinent to today, "Why doesn't everybody leave everybody else to hell alone" Or am i too laid back at this moment in time with a couple of gins.

[leftynyc]

171. Remember the art exhibit in NYC

called Piss Christ - or the elephant dung art. That sure was insulting to a lot of people. I know I supported the right of the museum to show it. I also support these newspapers. If Muslims dont want to live in the countries that have freedom of the press, that's their problem.

On edit - newspapers in Muslim countries routinely print stuff that is way beyond the pale when it comes to Jews and other infidels...their outrage is very selective.

[iverglas]

51. if only "ridicule" were the issue

and then, of course, if only the cartoon you offered were in fact "ridiculing" Jesus.

It isn't, and it isn't.

[megatherium]

5. I remember some years ago, 60 Minutes profiled

the cartoonist Callahan. They showed one of his best cartoons: Jesus hanging on the cross, thinking "TGIF!"

[maxsolomon]

7. and Callahan's published in PARADE

think about that for a second.

poor sensitive muslims need some thicker skin. if they can't handle a little critique, their religion must be built on a fear & ignorance.

what's that? ALL religion is built on fear & ignorance? :sarcasm:

[lumpy]

18. Callahan is NOT published in Parade.

Callahan's cartoons are featured in Sunday Seattle Times Pacific Northwest magazine.

[barb162]

86. LOL

I MISSED THAT 60 MINUTES SHOW

[Bridget Burke]

6. It's not just the "ridicule" factor...

Islam forbids portraits of The Prophet. The most fundamentalist versions of Islam do not allow artistic representations of living creatures.

The Persians were not fundamentalist; they did not abandon their ancient artistic traditions when they were converted. However, their depictions of Muhammad do not show his face. (These pictures were usually in books of exquisitve miniatures. You will NOT find this sort of thing on the wall of a Mosque.)



(The Angel Gabriel is in the center.)

[Julius Civitatus]

9. Fine, but they don't have to apply THEIR rules the rest of the world

I can understand THEY have their own rules for their religious followers, but I find it extreme and OBSCENE that the rest of the world, and particularly our democratic western societies, have to bend over and bow to their specific rules.

Mind you, I think a cartoon about any religious figure can be offensive, no matter the religion. But what we are talking here is our societies making exceptions in our FREEDOM of SPEECH for Islam.

Sorry, I don't buy that. And I think that if these European newspapers and governments bend over and reprimand their journalists over this matter, it would be a HUGE MISTAKE. It would only encourage fundamentalist Muslims to step up on their demands. Today it's a cartoon; tomorrow it would be an article criticizing any political or religious leader in the Islamic world. I don't think so. Same rules should apply to everyone, because that's one of the basis of our Western democracies (at least in theory).

When the religious leaders of Iran persecuted Salman Rushdie for publishing his book "The Satanic Verses", we didn't capture and hand him over to Iran to show "respect to their religious traditions." We shouldn't do that over these cartoons. We need to stand for principle.

[CottonBear]

12. I agree. Muslims can't control what is published in other countries.

For instance, a radical/conservative Muslim shouldn't move to a free society and then complain about it. He/she should stay where they are if they want to live in an atmosphere of censorship and repression.

[Book Lover]

46. Religious cops shouldn't be able to control what's published

in "their" countries either. I call for freedom of the press for every human.

[barb162]

87. your comment is a breath of fresh air

and same goes for everyone else who believes in freedom of the press and speech

[Gelliebeans]

221. Me too

freedom of the press is deteriorating rapidly thanks to these people.

[TankLV]

212. Here here.

Seems somebody doesn't understand the meaning of "freedom".

This is beyond disgusting.

EVERY group open to ridicule.

There can be NO exceptions.

[iverglas]

14. today it's Mohammed ...

... when is it likely to be the Pope? When do we really see newspaper cartoons portraying the Pope as responsible for, oh, the epidemic of AIDS in Africa?

I guess I should ask when we see newspaper cartoons portraying JESUS as responsible for the epidemic, since the Pope after all is just doing the bidding of some god who appointed Jesus its spokesperson, kinda like Mohammed was appointed by some god. And since the epidemic of AIDS in Africa is quite plainly a more horrific feature of our present-day world than anything being laid at Mohammed's doorstep ... at least to people who don't regard people of colour as less deserving of concern than white-skinned Europeans and their colonial descendants.

The fact that we don't see such cartoons might make us stop and think a moment, and wonder whether Muslims who see cartoons showing Mohammed with a bomb in his turban as RACIST might not just have a point?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

And comments such as I see in this thread, that Muslims who "move to" "free countries" (hint: a lot of Muslims have been born in said "free countries") should put up and shut up, don't exactly help. Not when the treatment of their religious figures -- that is, of THEMSELVES -- is very plainly DIFFERENT from the treatment of their fellow citizens.

By the way, for anyone wondering about why depictions of Mohammed are prohibited, from that article:

Islamic tradition bans any depiction of the prophets either in drawing or statues, even respectful ones, out of concern that such images could lead to idolatry, and thus worshipping of Muhammad instead of the One God.

I don't hold with limiting speech to spare anyone's religious sensibilities. I do find it completely hypocritical to suggest that one group should be the only one expected to have its religious sensibilities assaulted regularly in the media.

[Julius Civitatus]

53. Wrong

First of all, in the US as well as Europe, cartoons and offensive images of Christ and Christians are commonplace all over the place. And nobody has killed anybody over it. Modern western societies keep FREEDOM OF SPEECH in high esteem. I could name you hundreds of examples in popular culture where the image of Christ was used in what could be considered irreverent, insulting and offensive ways, but take Monty Python's "Life of Brian," South Park, or the latest cover of Rolling Stone magazine as some widely known examples.

Second, Muslims, or any other religion, have no right to tell an independent publication what to say, much less threaten with harm or assault embassies (today in Palestine) for the publication of one newspaper. This may be the rule for a different civilization, but not part of our principles.

Last, I would like to mention that the example that you use of "the Pope infecting people with Aids" is not only inadequate for what you are trying to explain, but silly and immature. While it is true that the Catholic church opposes the use of contraceptives, which I find retrograde, most of the nations in Africa suffering the epidemic of Aids are not Catholic. And certainly people do not fuck in the name of the pope. It doesn't even make sense.

But to your point, yes, there are offensive depictions of the pope, and I am sure more than one newspaper has published offensive cartoons about the pope, catholicism (just go to the southern states of the US, where the Baptists rule), or Christianism.

You are the one that doesn't "get it."
Get it?

[iverglas]

59. oh, well, there I am: wrong

How could I be so stupid? Or is it evil?

First of all, in the US as well as Europe, cartoons and offensive images of Christ and Christians are commonplace all over the place.

First of all, let's not be tilting at straw thingies.

Could you find me a cartoon/offensive image -- in a mainstream, big-city newspaper, please -- of Christ/Christians that characterizes Christ as the perpetrator of any of the evils done in his name, or that characterizes Christianity as the reason why such evils are perpetrated?

Don't give me offensive. Give me stereotyped, ignorant and dishonest to the point of racism, please. 'Cause that's exactly what I see in some of the cartoons in question.

Second, Muslims, or any other religion, have no right to tell an independent publication what to say, much less threaten with harm or assault embassies (today in Palestine) for the publication of one newspaper. This may be the rule for a different civilization, but not part of our principles.

Second, let's not be tilting at straw thingies.

I didn't say anyone had any such right. You might want to go lecture someone who did.

And hmm, I wonder what "civilization" you're intimating that this might be the rule for. Can't think of one myself offhand. Sure can imagine that some people might like to portray a couple that way, and some people might actually believe that of a couple ... and gosh, damned if I don't see that sort of stereotyped misconception -- oh, let's call a pig a pig: bigotry -- as exactly what can be expected to result from cartoons portraying the religious figures that such civilizations revere as perpetrating/advocating atrocities.

That would be my point. Getting it?

Modern western societies keep FREEDOM OF SPEECH in high esteem.

Bully for modern western societies. Decent people everywhere hold RACISM in contempt.

I could name you hundreds of examples in popular culture where the image of Christ was used in what could be considered irreverent, insulting and offensive ways, but take Monty Python's "Life of Brian," South Park, or the latest cover of Rolling Stone magazine as some widely known examples.

And to get back to our subject -- how 'bout some examples of portrayals of Christ/Christianity that represent him as committing heinous crimes / represent his followers, as an undistinguished mass, as despicable for their reverence of him?

But to your point, yes, there are offensive depictions of the pope

Yeah, except that my actual point was that there don't seem to be any depictions of JESUS (who, not the pope, would be the equivalent of Mohammed, eh?) committing/advocating ATROCITIES, like, say, one depicting him carrying a vial of HIV up his sleeve.

Has anyone here actually seen any of the cartoons that some people take exception to?

You are the one that doesn't "get it."
Get it?

Yeah, I have seen the light. Uninformed, ethnocentric opinion being spewed at me usually has that effect.

Sorry, I am the one who doesn't choose to talk publicly about things I know nothing about (or conveniently change the subject when it suits me), or to engage in public demonizing of other people based on my own ethnocentric uninformed little worldview.

[Julius Civitatus]

69. You certainly are

Where to start?

How could I be so stupid? Or is it evil?

Take your pick. See if I care.

Could you find me a cartoon/offensive image -- in a mainstream, big-city newspaper, please -- of Christ/Christians that characterizes Christ as the perpetrator of any of the evils done in his name, or that characterizes Christianity as the reason why such evils are perpetrated?

I'm pretty sure that if some local newspaper had published said cartoon, and next day received all sorts of death threats and attacks, and created an international mess of this sort, you'll have said cartoon on the cover of the New York Post and the NY Daily News (tabloids equivalent to the France Soir). Knowing the NY Post, I'm willing to bet cash on it!
Still, to my point, offensive depictions of Jesus are everywhere in this society. Everywhere.

But back to the controversy at hand, it's the fact that people from such democratic places like Saudi Arabia were calling for the destruction of that Danish newspaper what created the controversy. Remember, I started my first post mentioning that I understand how certain depictions of religious symbols can be offensive to believers. No question about it, and I certainly understand the feelings that those depictions can inspire on believers. But the scandal quickly moved from "offensive cartoons" to "telling western newspapers WHAT TO DO!" That's when the reaction took place, and other newspapers in the EU (France, Germany, Spain, UK) published the cartoons in solidarity with the Danish newspapers.

...and some people might actually believe that of a couple ... and gosh, damned if I don't see that sort of stereotyped misconception -- oh, let's call a pig a pig: bigotry -- as exactly what can be expected to result from cartoons portraying the religious figures that such civilizations revere ...

Bully for modern western societies. Decent people everywhere hold RACISM in contempt.

Just what I expected. When your arguments are shaky, scream "RACISM" at your opponent. It never fails. Nice!

And to get back to our subject -- how 'bout some examples of portrayals of Christ/Christianity that represent him as committing heinous crimes / represent his followers, as an undistinguished mass, as despicable for their reverence of him? ....

committing/advocating ATROCITIES, like, say, one depicting him carrying a vial of HIV up his sleeve.

First of all, you are using a straw man argument that serves as a poor example to the discussion. Secondly, I don't understand why someone should depict Jesus with a vial of HIV up his sleeve/. Do people fuck in the name of Jesus? Do HIV positive people fuck other people for Jesus? Your example is not quite adequate, period.

Again, yes, I do understand that certain images or cartoons can offend some people. Specially if those images or cartoons depict religious figures. People in my family are very religious and I can certainly understand.

Now, the matter has gone from THAT point to telling westerners what to do or not to do. There is where I do take issue, and I can certainly understand the editors of these many newspapers publishing the cartoons in spite. A bad move? Probably. Offensive and confrontational? Certainly so. But I think it's an important symbolic gesture to make. We will not be cowed again by religious extremists, as we were for centuries. No way!

You may call this attitude ethnocentric. Whatever. I don't care. But I'll tell you this: I thank my lucky stars every single day that I was born and living in a certain culture that allows me to do certain mundane things without fear for my life. And that includes expressing my views on any subject.

And you do too...

[iverglas]

78. yada yada

Could you find me a cartoon/offensive image -- in a mainstream, big-city newspaper, please -- of Christ/Christians that characterizes Christ as the perpetrator of any of the evils done in his name, or that characterizes Christianity as the reason why such evils are perpetrated?
I'm pretty sure that if some local newspaper had published said cartoon

And we can stop right there, because I didn't ask you to read tea leaves and tell me the future you saw in them, I asked you for an example of something. I'm not seeing it.

So there we are. In some places, it's regarded as acceptable to publish material that reflects and encourages racial/ethnic/religious stereotypes about members of particular groups, and it apparently isn't considered acceptable to do this to other groups.

Still, to my point, offensive depictions of Jesus are everywhere in this society. Everywhere.

I'm no more interested in your point than I ever was. It has nothing to do with my point.

Remember, I started my first post mentioning that I understand how certain depictions of religious symbols can be offensive to believers. No question about it, and I certainly understand the feelings that those depictions can inspire on believers.

And that's charming, but again, it's just your own attempt to define a problem out of existence. The materials being published in Europe are not "offensive to believers", they are RACIST. And they are apparently being published purely for the purposes of provoking reaction ... thereby obviously validating the racist beliefs already held by people in the society. They're speech, all right. Explicitly racist speech for which there is no apparent reason other than to incite hatred.

But the scandal quickly moved from "offensive cartoons" to "telling western newspapers WHAT TO DO!"

Yeah, I gotta go with you there. Nobody should tell western newspapers what to do. And yeah, that's the really, really big problem in this situation. Not the treatment by the west of minority groups within its borders, or of non-westerners in those non-western countries. Nope. It's somebody trying to tell newspapers what to do.

Just all depends on your POV, I guess. Insular and ethnocentric though it may be.

I'll have to do a search for all the threads there must have been at DU decrying the racist depictions of Muslims in western newspaper cartoons. I'm sure that anyone who can wax so excited about someone telling a newspaper what to do must have got really exercised about a newspaper inciting hatred against minority groups.

Just what I expected. When your arguments are shaky, scream "RACISM" at your opponent. It never fails. Nice!

And now any time you want to learn a tiny little bit about what you've chosen to yammer about, the internet is there at your fingertips.

Odd how what I always see in these situations is how whenever someone knows nothing about something (or cares nothing about it; no way for me to tell, often), s/he screams "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" at anyone who does.

First of all, you are using a straw man argument that serves as a poor example to the discussion.

Oh, and then there are those who like to fling around allegations of logical fallacies in the most bizarre and completely, um, red-herringish ways.

Secondly, I don't understand why someone should depict Jesus with a vial of HIV up his sleeve/.

Oh, you could try reading my posts in this very thread.

Do people fuck in the name of Jesus? Do HIV positive people fuck other people for Jesus? Your example is not quite adequate, period.

Try again. Here, let me help you.

Do some people exercise all the influence and power they have to stop other people (people of colour, in those non-"western" countries, of course) being provided with resources to protect themselves against HIV infection? Might one of those people be the pope? Does the pope claim to speak to Jesus and speak for that god of his? Are people dying in large numbers, and are millions of people suffering poverty and pain, because of his and his followers' despicable behaviour? Should we not lay this all at Jesus's doorstep? Got a clue yet? Got an editorial cartoon for me yet?

[Julius Civitatus]

85. Blah, blah, blah...

Your examples are SILLY, and your rhetoric tired and circular. I gave perfect good explanations of the context of this controversy but you keep your "crusade", insisting that we show you something that does not exist. Still, you seem to ignore the fact that in the US and western democracies, offensive depictions of Christian figure are commonplace. Yes, it does matter. And it's very telling that you keep ignoring it.

No there isn't a front page cartoon of Jesus injecting HIV on poor Africans. But your circular logic keeps demanding that we show you something alike in order to validate a point. A point that you keep missing by changing the subject: this is about freedom of speech. And yes, European newspapers should not bend over to death threats and fatwas. And I guess, according to you, we should have captured Salman Rushdie and turned him over the Iranian ayatollah for execution, since his writings were offensive to Islamic sensitivities. Same logic you are using.

And once again, you turn around and scream "racism" when the cartoons (offensive as they may be), relate to religion, not race. But we know that screaming "racism" is a old resource for those lacking stronger debate skills. Yawn!!!

Every day on newspapers all over the Arab world there publish offensive depictions of Jews and Americans as killers, blood-thirsty criminals, or depicted as vampires, monsters, wild dogs. They are very offensive, sometimes revolting cartoons. Newspapers in Egypt and Saudi Arabia can publish claims that Jews "kidnap children to suck their blood" in their rituals. You see crap like that every single day in the Arab world. See, "freedom of the press" certainly applies here when it comes to "hating the Jew" or the endemic anti-Americanism of most newspapers on Muslim countries. But when a Danish newspaper publishes offensive cartoons about Islam, all hell breaks lose. It goes both ways, pal. If they are willing to dish it, they should be able to take it as well.

Once again, with spirit, I think you should thank your lucky stars that you live in a free society that allows you post your thoughts freely, without a religious tribunal watching over your opinions. The same can't be said for most countries in the Muslim world.

Keep shadowboxing with your own arguments. Maybe you'll hit something if you keep trying. It's endearing, but quit wasting time, yours and mine.

[iverglas]

95. maybe you should write the guy a fan letter

Every day on newspapers all over the Arab world there publish offensive depictions of Jews and Americans as killers, blood-thirsty criminals, or depicted as vampires, monsters, wild dogs. They are very offensive, sometimes revolting cartoons. Newspapers in Egypt and Saudi Arabia can publish claims that Jews "kidnap children to suck their blood" in their rituals. You see crap like that every single day in the Arab worl.

Maybe he could use you if he runs out of editorial cartoons vilifying Muslims/Arabs.

If they are willing to dish it, they should be able to take it as well.

Ah yes, we're back to that "they" I'm hearing so much of.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/whiteness02.htm

Language of Closet Racism:
An Illustration

... Dis-ownership

Closet racists tend to avoid owning their views on race. They often point to other groups, using terms such as "they," or "those people," instead of refering to themselves. In the previous passage, Jen clearly utilized the language of dis-ownership, thus assessing blame to others. "There was a huge line between them.." "I thought they would dislike me."

http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/resources/paradigmshifts_race.html

So You Think You're an Anti-Racist?

... Why can't we all just get along? Why can't we just have peace on earth? Why are “those people” so angry?

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/1999-04/apr1wise.htm

"White America’s Dirty Little Secrets"

At first I thought about discussing the process of "white bonding" that goes on when white folks who don’t know each other that well are in an all-white setting, and issues of race come up. Whether it’s in a cab, a bar, a park, a restaurant, or a college dorm room, whites almost instinctively assume every other white person in the room thinks just the way they do, and proceed to cut loose with any number of racial diatribes: about "those people" on welfare (CEO’s I ask?); "those people" coming across the border (Canadians, I presume?); "those people" who will shoot you at the drop of a hat (white schoolchildren in Arkansas, or Oregon, I inquire?).

http://www.cpag.net/guide/2/2_pages/2_4_06.htm

The Stereotype Blocks show contrasting examples of how we are trained to constantly categorize people without really thinking. Examples included "Those people are stinky; these people are clean. Those people are bad drivers; these people are good drivers. Those people eat nasty food; these people eat tasty food. These people are social drinkers; those people are drunks."

The Stereotype Blocks are carried along a conveyor belt and inserted into a projection machine (a human head). Now instead seeing with its own eyes, the head merely projects the images it has been programmed with onto the outlines of people. It is now predetermined if you are a "friendly fellow" or a "threatening other."

"They".

Once again, with spirit, I think you should thank your lucky stars that you live in a free society that allows you post your thoughts freely, without a religious tribunal watching over your opinions. The same can't be said for most countries in the Muslim world.

You're probably assuming I live where you live. I don't. I live in a place that doesn't have "free speech zones", and where I am not corralled off into nice little paddocks in nowhereland when I want to express my negative opinion of my government. Where I'm at, we also don't pretend that the incitement of racially/ethnically motivated hatred is a thing of beauty.

And some of us are actually able to grasp what others of us are saying, and respond to it instead of pretending that a discussion is about something else altogether.

Have you looked at the cartoons yet? Got any comment about the ACTUAL SUBJECT of this particular controversy? Or just want to keep yammering on about irrelevancies and pretending that someone else is the one with the fallacies?

[Julius Civitatus]

194. Maybe you should join the jihad (see, it goes both ways)

Holy crap! I come back here and see you've been posting all freaking night! Replying frantically to everyone who dares claim this is an issue of freedom of speech. Stunning, really. I wonder if you think many people see your shrill empty drivel interesting. I doubt it. Most of us would see it as "obsession." But anyway, here we go...

maybe you should write the guy a fan letter

Bwaahahahaha!!!! See? Just as I thought. Never mind I pointed from the very beginning that I do agree the cartoons (at least some of them) can be offensive indeed. Still, if I disagree with you in this matter, it means I am "all the way" on the other side of the debate. This is typical of someone without much conviction in her on own positions, someone that needs to vilify and turn your debate opponents on the ultimate evil. Whatever. See if I give two shits about your "PC policing."

And since you want to lump me with the cartoonists (when I am just defending their right to express themselves freely), I can play this game too: "Maybe you should join the jihad." See? Now we are sinking the debate to your level.

Maybe he could use you if he runs out of editorial cartoons vilifying Muslims/Arabs.

Bizarre! Do I draw cartoons vilyfing Muslims? You are accusing me of racism when I didn't say a single thing that would be considered racist at all. Once again, when you feel like you can hold your point, just scream "RACISM! RACISM!" in your shrill tone to see if it sticks. Wrong, as usual. But you are not beneath using cheap rhetorical tricks. Cheap demagoguery, that's your game.

Nevertheless, it's interesting that you'd yell "racism" to avoid the issue of hateful, anti-Semitic, anti-American cartoons in the Arab and middle-eastern press. Very telling, indeed. You know well this happens daily, in ways that are insulting and provocative on purpose. But you sure don't have an issue with it. Following your logic, if they need a replacement, you should write anti-Semitic cartoons for middle-eastern newspapers. And you keep avoiding the issue of Salman Rushdie, because according to your logic, we should honor the fundamentalist radicals and hand over this man for execution.

Language of Closet Racism:
....
"White America’s Dirty Little Secrets"
....
So You Think You're an Anti-Racist?

Wow! More cheap rhetoric and empty drivel from the Royal Mounted PC Police.

I was wondering what I said that could be misconstrued as "racist" (if at all). Now I get it: I used the word "THEY." First of all, "THEY" is a pronoun of the English language, and I will keep using it whenever I refer to a group in the third person. Sure, go ahead and start chastising those who use the pronoun "THEY," because they are "racist."

What a joke.

Second... how the heck do you assume that I am "white"? Cause I'm certainly not, and you are wrong, again. And you certainly can't lump me with "White America’s Dirty Little Secrets." But well, there's so much we need to learn about PC and PC matters from the PC police. Oh please, please tell us all about democracy, patronize us from your holy pulpit of self-righteousness. Ahhhh....

You're probably assuming I live where you live. I don't. I live in a place that doesn't have "free speech zones", and where I am not corralled off into nice little paddocks in nowhereland when I want to express my negative opinion of my government.

I know America under Bush sucks. You don't have to tell me that; I'm posting at DU after all. What's interesting is that I was referring to most places in the Middle East (take Saudi Arabia, for instance). I'm pretty sure you couldn't enjoy 99% of the freedoms you enjoy over there. But again, don't let facts, once again, get in the way of your shrill demagoguery. I’m sure you would look lovely in a burka or a shador.

And still, no matter how much it can suck, I would take America under Bush a million times before I any place in the middle east. By a long shot. Not even close.

Where I'm at, we also don't pretend that the incitement of racially/ethnically-motivated hatred is a thing of beauty.

Yes, yes, cause up there it's perfect, and we need to be told how to do things. Oh please tell us, PC police. To your point, nobody claimed that "racially/ethnically motivated hatred is a thing of beauty." That's just a lie, another diversion in your silly retorts that tries to vilify anyone that disagrees with you and changes the subject. Funny. It's so much easy to start insulting me, calling me names, making assumptions and changing the subject that actually recognizing that I may have a point indeed. By all means, if it eases your little mind, keep claiming all that disagree with you are "incitement of racially/ethnically motivated hatred."

So please, keep yapping about how everyone who disagrees that this is a free speech matter is evil, racist, whatever... while avoiding the subject, distorting my words, setting silly "straw man" diversions and using other cheap tricks to avoid the subject.

You can certainly spend all day and night yammering about how evil everyone that disagrees with you are, in your mind. Whatever. Some of us have jobs, things to do, and a life instead of replying to the empty drivel and cheap demagoguery. This “conversation” is like talking to a brick wall with ADD, a complete waste of time.

For the record, today several newspapers in Europe, in solidarity with the Danish newspaper and France Soir are publishing IN THEIR COVERS new cartoons of Mohammed and various editorials calling to reclaim freedom of speech in free societies. These are newspapers in Germany, France's progressive daily "Le Monde" and Spain's progressive daily "El Pais." Yeah, a bunch of racists and xenophobes those liberal newspapers, all be damned. See, they are racist and mean for sticking to principle.

Here I leave you with an article that may very well identify your thinking, since you think the entire planet should follow Islamic precepts no matter what:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060202/en_afp/denmarkmediaislam_060202153208
Rushdie execution would have stopped insults: Hezbollah

..."If there had been a Muslim to carry out Imam Khomeini's fatwa against the renegade Salman Rushdie, this rabble who insult our Prophet Mohammed in Denmark, Norway and France would not have dared to do so," Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah said in remarks published Thursday...

[iverglas]

199. yeah, fascinating

Shall I be brief? Pot, kettle.

At least be accurate. I got to the office a little after 6 a.m. Where you see "all night", I wouldn't know. And oh, you can imagine how impressed I am by characterizations of my writing. What a novel approach to discussion you have taken. Not.

Bwaahahahaha!!!! See? Just as I thought. Never mind I pointed from the very beginning that I do agree the cartoons (at least some of them) can be offensive indeed. ...

Okay. If you'll never mind that I was responding to a particular glob of stuff you'd said, which I quoted and responded directly to.

And since you want to lump me with the cartoonists (when I am just defending their right to express themselves freely), ...

Mmm ... no. You were speaking in your own voice, and you said:

Every day on newspapers all over the Arab world there publish offensive depictions of Jews and Americans as killers, blood-thirsty criminals, or depicted as vampires, monsters, wild dogs. They are very offensive, sometimes revolting cartoons. Newspapers in Egypt and Saudi Arabia can publish claims that Jews "kidnap children to suck their blood" in their rituals. You see crap like that every single day in the Arab worl.

and I was just commenting on that.

Nothing whatsoever with you disagreeing with anything or anyone, or with my positions on anything.

Nevertheless, it's interesting that you'd yell "racism" to avoid the issue of hateful, anti-Semitic, anti-American cartoons in the Arab and middle-eastern press.

Nah. What's weird is that you would think those things are relevant to anything under discussion here, and what's interesting is that people who try to wedge them into the discussion here seem to be trying mighty hard to avoid what is actually under discussion. If you want to discuss what goes on in the press in the Arab and middle-eastern press, why don't you start a thread?

Second... how the heck do you assume that I am "white"?

Well I dunno. How the heck do you assume that I assumed you are white? Because the materials I reproduced regarding racism and stereotyping referred to whites doing it? Gosh, I guess abstract thought might have been called for.

And still, no matter how much it can suck, I would take America under Bush a million times before I any place in the middle east. By a long shot. Not even close.

And again, if that is somehow remotely relevant to a discussion of whether editorial cartoons published in the European press are intended to inspire racial hatred, I'm sure you'll let me know some day.

So please, keep yapping about how everyone who disagrees that this is a free speech matter ...

But of course it's a "free speech matter", you big silly!

So are the matters of shouting fire in a crowded theatre, lying under oath, selling state secrets, advertising snake oil to cure what ails you, conspiring to commit a crime, and a few other things I'm sure we could think of. They're all generally illegal.

And so is calling the next door neighbour a big fat pig, and telling your spouse that his/her new haircut is hideous, and saying any other obnoxious thing we might think of. Decent people might refrain from saying many of them.

Since I have never proposed that state action be taken against editorial cartoonists or their publishers, or condoned private violence being committed against them, I'm just smelling herring and straw.

Some of us have jobs, things to do, and a life instead of replying to the empty drivel and cheap demagoguery.

Heh. I guess either the empty drivel and cheap demagoguery isn't coming from me, or you don't have a job or anything to do or a life. Oh well.

Yeah, a bunch of racists and xenophobes those liberal newspapers, all be damned.

Guess so. You never can trust a liberal, can you? It's just all Me, Me, Me ...


I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Phil Ochs, 1989

[Julius Civitatus]

201. Yawn!

Exactly as I expected: selective focus, selective avoidance of subjects, more shrill demagoguery. And of course, more "yappity yap yap."

Boring.

<Unsubscribing>

[Hatalles]

105. Reverence for Muhammad is not exclusive to fundies.

He is figure of deep respect to moderate and liberal Muslims as well. These cartoons are a slap in the face to all Muslims. I wonder what would happen if the Times published a series of cartoons on their front page of civil rights leaders like MLK and Rosa Parks in leapord skins, big lips, bones through their noses, the whole Jim Crow caricature... all in the name of "freedom of speech" -- because they can. Ah, noble, noble...

[AngryAmish]

109. Do you remember the "Harold Washington in lingerie" fuss?

Cost the City several million dollars.

[Hatalles]

115. He was the mayor of Chicago?

But no, I haven't heard about this "lingerie" thing that happened...

[AngryAmish]

120. Harold Washington was mayor of Chicago

First African-American mayor. A much beloved and revered man. He was a lifelong bachelor and he dogged by rumors of homosexuality.

He passed away in office (1988 I think.)

A few months later a student at the Art Institute of Chicago displayed a painting of Harold Washington in lingerie. A group of aldermen were much offended and stole the picture in broad daylight.

The student eventually got his picture back but damaged.

Student sued the city. City's defense was that the picture was so disturbing they "arrested" the picture to prevent civil unrest. The Court didn't buy it and the city had to pay hefty damages. 1st Amendment and all that.

[Yupster]

224. Remember the People Versus Larry Flynt?

Larry Flynt printed a cartoon about religious fundamentalist leader Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother.

Falwell though he went too far and sued him.

The court ruled for Flynt and both of them went on with their lives.

[MrPrax]

77. Oh you again!!!

Hey Neighbour...

um...does it help to point out that the cartoon from Harper's was making a political comment on old Pat 'Holy Jihad' Robertson suggesting Chavez should be assassinated?

I'll let you shift through the various 'blasphemies' with the rest of the world's Inquisators and render judgement appropriately.

If the cartoonist floats, then he's guilty!!

[ljaycox]

117. Are you old enough to remember "Piss Christ"?

[iverglas]

119. okay, I give up

Did you have a point?

[Baconfoot]

169. I gather you haven't heard of the "piss christ" controversy. It's a hoot.

You should look it up.

[iverglas]

176. you gather wrong

But you can always tell me: was there a point? One that had some little thing to do with something I've said?

[tarheel1971]

215. Pope=Mohamed

Sorry, iverglas, but "JESUS (who, not the pope, would be the equivalent of Mohammed" is just not correct.


I'm not a Muslim or Christian, but don't Christians believe Jesus is God and Muslims believe Allah is God? The prophet, on the other hand, is not believed to be God. So it seems to me that the Pope=Mohamed is the proper analogy or at least St Peter=Mohamed.

Anyway, it is hypocritical for those in Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia that prohibit any other religion/religious practices to complain about cartoons of Mohamed.

Maybe those of us who believe in freedom of religion and speech should boycott some Arab product --- say, oil?

[Yupster]

225. It just seems completely outrageous

that any religion would demand that non-members of their religion must follow their religious rules.

That just seems on the face of it outrageous.

[Boojatta]

159. Muslims are at risk of idolizing a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb?

By the way, for anyone wondering about why depictions of Mohammed are prohibited, from that article:

Islamic tradition bans any depiction of the prophets either in drawing or statues, even respectful ones, out of concern that such images could lead to idolatry, and thus worshipping of Muhammad instead of the One God.

If that is the reason, then what is the problem?

[iverglas]

177. I give up

Muslims are at risk of idolizing a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb?

Did someone say that? Did I say that? Did I say anything at all that remotely resembled that?

Are you thick as two planks? Did you for some reason want to portray yourself as being thick as two planks? Or did you maybe just want to portray me as having said something that only someone thick as two planks would have said?

Did the reason I gave (as an aside) why Muslims do not depict Mohammed graphically have anything to do with the reasons why decent people, including Muslims, would object to depictions of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban?

I didn't think so. If you did, may we hope that this is cleared up now?

[TankLV]

213. Forgot about "jesus in urine" already?

That's just one of the more "tame" examples that come to mind.

Sinead O'Conner and her pope comments is another.

[iverglas]

235. read other people's posts much?

The artwork you mention has been referred to several times in this thread.

I have yet to receive any response to my question of what relevance it has here.

Are Christians where that piece was displayed being discriminated against, vilified, harassed and assaulted? Made into political scapegoats by the fascist/racist right wing? Widely hated by people whose hatred would be validated and fed by such displays?

Did the piece of art in question portray them as the followers of a mass murderer?

I didn't think so.

Of course, I also don't think that an alleged work of art by an individual (or an opinion voiced by a pop singer) is quite equivalent to a continuing stream of editorial comment in mass-circulation mainstream publications.

[Bridget Burke]

21. So--I guess there are no Muslims in Europe?

I'm sure there are some who are upstanding citizens of various countries. But many in those countries want to see them put in their place. Were the insulting cartoons designed to express the racism & xenophobia that, alas, can be found anywhere? These were EDITORIAL cartoons, not independant works of art.

Would obscene portrayals of Jesus be allowed in the US? (They will NOT appear in the Muslim world--Jesus is respected as a prophet.)

[ButterflyBlood]

23. yes they are

It's because of the First Amendment. I own a few records that have such portrayls of Jesus in their inserts. People need to develop thick skins, and be able to deal with unfavorable portrayals of figures of their religion by people who don't follow that religion.

[Yupster]

226. Most of us learn that before age ten

when you're offended, don't look, change the channel, turn off the radio, cancel your subscription.

[Julius Civitatus]

35. Offensive portrayals of Jesus are allowed in the US, yes.

From works of art to film (does Monty Python's "Life of Brian" ring a bell), to ">album covers of rock bands, to South Park, to cartoons. Check out this month's cover of the Rolling Stone. And Christian groups would protest and call for boycotts, but nothing happens. End of the story. And the US government does not have to apologize to the pope evrytime this happens. This is a FREE secular society (at least we still are).

Every single day newspapers in Arab countries publish offensive statements against the West, against Christianity and specially against Judaism. They can literally say that Jews "drink the blood of children in their religious rituals," as newspapers in Egypt and Saudi Arabia have stated as "facts," yet a cartoon published in a western country requires that the entire EU officially apologizes to the entire Arab world.

Sorry, but western democracy doesn't work that way.

[Bridget Burke]

54. Let me know when an offensive cartoon of Jesus runs on the front page

Of your town's major newspaper.

"They hate us for our Freedom!"

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. The BBC did broadcast "Jerry Springer The Muscial"

featuring Jesus in a nappy singing "yes, I am a bit gay". Many Christians found it offensive, and complained, but it wasn't an international incident, with gunmen making threats. And the BBC stood by freedom of expression.

[iverglas]

84. again, just a tad different

Jesus in a nappy singing "yes, I am a bit gay" isn't quite the same thing as Mohammed with a bomb under his turban.

Has anyone at the BBC stated that the purpose of broadcasting the program was to provoke Christians?

Are Christians in the UK under attack by bigots/racists because of their religion/ethnicity? Does making fun of their revered leader expose them to hatred? Is making fun of their revered leader quite the same as portraying their revered leader as committing/advocating atrocities? Is making fun of the revered leader of a group that is already widely reviled and at risk the same as making fun of the revered leader of a group under no threat?

Discussion and disagreement about how to deal with the publication of materials that provoke hatred and increase the risk of harm to which members of vulnerable groups are exposed are certainly possible.

One doesn't have to be a fanatical Muslim to see the difference between the musical portrayal of Jesus and the editorial depiction of Mohammed, and to see the very real difference between the potential effects of them. If one wishes to discuss whether any reaction to either of them is appropriate, however, one does have to acknowledge that very real difference.

Depicting Jesus as gay may be offensive to some Christians, and hell, it might even make some people laugh at Christians; depicting Mohammed as a bomber is a calculated and dishonest attempt to incite hatred.

[Julius Civitatus]

88. Well, of course!!!

See, because offending Mohamed is so much more offensive than to offend Jesus. Calling Jesus gay may, just may offend some hyper-sensitive, stuck-up Christians. But now, depicting Mohamed with a bomb on his head is a crime against humanity, an offense so enormous that calls for a fatwa, since it's mean and calculated to start a hate war!!!

And it's racist too!!!

:sarcasm:

:evilgrin:

[iverglas]

96. you sure do say

some weird things. If only they were relevant to anything anybody else had said ...

[muriel_volestrangler]

89. No, it was an attempt to say "you can't tell us what to say"

not an attempt to incite hatred. That's what the newspaper said. It hasn't incited hatred - but, when Muslims in the Middle East heard about it, it incited demonstrations, boycotts and diplomatic protests by Muslims. The 'bomb as turban' is no different from portrayals of 'Uncle Sam' as committing crimes. Any hatred is going to come from the reaction of these Muslims.

[iverglas]

98. okay, how bout you?

No, it was an attempt to say "you can't tell us what to say"
not an attempt to incite hatred.

Have you SEEN what was published?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2080827&mesg_id=2081829

Have you read the editor's stated motivation for publishing it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2080827&mesg_id=2081681

The 'bomb as turban' is no different from portrayals of 'Uncle Sam' as committing crimes.

Nonsense.

"Uncle Sam" is an imaginary icon representing a state, and that state has committed and does and will commit crimes.

Mohammed was a person whom many people believe spoke for their god. The two really aren't the same thing.

And using an iconic representation of a state to depict the atrocities actually committed by that state simply is not the same thing as depicting a person believed to speak for a god as committing the atrocities committed by some people who claim to be acting in his name.

Any hatred is going to come from the reaction of these Muslims.

Again: nonsense, assuming that you are referring to hatred of Muslims. What earthly purpose could portraying Mohammed as a committer of atrocities have but to inspire hatred of people who claim to follow him? Every Muslim in the world could have turned the other cheek to such a cartoon, and its only imaginable purpose, and undeniable effect, would have been to inspire hatred of all of them.

[Hatalles]

101. You're on top of this.

"Freedom of speech" is used as an excuse used by white supremacists to malign minorities here in the US all the time. You can reject political correctness but you can still be a racist.

[iverglas]

106. and I'm a bleedin' militant atheist

I hold all religions in contempt, and ridicule them equal-time.

I do not vilify people because of what they believe. Because of what they do, now that's another matter!

[muriel_volestrangler]

121. Yes, I've seen the cartoons

Here's the Danish editor, back in October:

The daily published the series of cartoons, after a writer complained that nobody dared illustrate his book about Muhammad.

"We must quietly point out here that the drawings illustrated an article on the self-censorship which rules large parts of the Western world", the paper said.

"Our right to say, write, photograph and draw what we want to within the framework of the law exists and must endure - unconditionally!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4361260.stm

The France Soir editorial:

The French newspaper denounced "this religious intolerance that refuses to support any mockery, any satire, any gibes." And the newspaper derided a motley assortment of critics of the cartoon -- ranging from Arab ministers who called the cartoons an "offense to Islam," to the Islamic Jihad and other extremist groups -- as hardly the "paragons of tolerance, humanity and democracy."

"Enough lessons from these retrograde bigots!" France-Soir wrote. "There is nothing criminal in these drawings, no racist intention, no will to denigrate a community as such. Some are funny, some less so, that's it. It's to show this that we've decided to publish them."

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060201-093618-4960r

Mohammed was a person, who represents a religion. A religion and a state are similar in may ways - especially a religion that lays down laws, such as Islam. Mohammed also led his followers in war; depicting him with a modern 'weapon', used by some of his modern-day followers, and justified by more, is an editorial comment. No, the cartoons don't have to be to inspire hatred; they can be criticism, or comment that Islam has become associated with violence. Disapproval is not hatred. I think less of Muslims not because I saw the cartoon a few days ago; it's because so many of them are demanding that their rules for themselves should apply to all of us. I wouldn't say I hate them yet; but it's the widespread Muslim reaction that I don't like.

[Centered]

170. Was I the only one

Quote
"Depicting Jesus as gay may be offensive to some Christians, and hell, it might even make some people laugh at Christians; depicting Mohamed as a bomber is a calculated and dishonest attempt to incite hatred."

Was I the only one who looked at that particular cartoon and thought it meant Islam was "explosive"?

Not a flame mate so don't get me wrong but would not a Muslim also be offended at a picture of Jesus because that could lead to idolatry? Does it really matter if that picture depicted Jesus in a positive light if ANY depiction is supposed to be bad? If Jesus is also a prophet in Islam I would think depicting him as gay (a sin in Islam punishable by death in some areas) would be just a big an insult.

[iverglas]

179. that's all quite possible

Was I the only one who looked at that particular cartoon and thought it meant Islam was "explosive"?

Maybe. I don't know. But I'm not sure why it would be any better for an editorial cartoon in a major daily to depict the religion adhered to by a vulnerable minority group as "explosive" than it would be to depict an individual revered in that religion as a bomber. Both would seem to be both false and calculated to inflame hostility toward members of that group.

would not a Muslim also be offended at a picture of Jesus because that could lead to idolatry?

Quite possibly. But I would imagine that a majority of Muslims -- you know, the huge vast majority who don't blow things up -- consider what people of other religions do with their own revered personages to be their own business.

If Jesus is also a prophet in Islam I would think depicting him as gay (a sin in Islam punishable by death in some areas) would be just a big an insult.

Yes ... and ... once again, but I doubt for the last time ... **I** am not talking about "insult". **I** am talking about editorial commentary in major daily newspapers that is calculated to inflame hostility toward members of vulnerable ethnic/religious/racial/cultural minority groups.

[barb162]

90. But what about when offensive material runs in Muslim

area newspapers, such as the Mideast? I recognize the right of anyone to run satirical cartoons. Tolerance versus intolerance.

[pitohui]

36. jesus bridget, you never seen a hustler magazine?

yes obscene portrayals of jesus are allowed in the usa

blasphemous portrayals of jesus are widely allowed as well, don't even pretend you haven't seen jesus/clinton all over the fabulous internets

there is a point at which if you don't think something is funny, you can unsubscribe to that newspaper or magazine or website and let the market have its way

humor by its nature is not funny unless it comes close to some edge of taboo

[Bridget Burke]

41. I don't care for Hustler.

But I'm not going to pick up a copy & bitch because I find it offensive.

Editorial cartoons are something else again. Again--it's a business decision. If the newspaper wants circulation to drop off, they can print anything they want. Generally, they don't.

[Yupster]

227. Hustler is a good example pitohui

because Larry Flynt will come right out and say why he ran a demeaning cartoon against someone.

He'll just say I don't like that person so I thought I'd insult him.

That's is right in a free press.

If people are offended by it, then don't look.

[iverglas]

37. "Would obscene portrayals of Jesus be allowed in the US?"

I think that the real question is: would they be published in any big-city daily?

No, I don't think so. I'm sure they're "allowed", I just don't think that it would occur to anyone to portray Jesus as instructing, let alone participating in, the atrocities his self-proclaimed followers commit. I think most people would just look at that as, well, kinda dishonest, and kinda bigoted in its undifferentiated portrayal of people who revere him.

Really, it's just Muslims who should develop thick skins. It's just Muslims who should turn the other cheek when their religion is mocked and reviled and its founder is portrayed as a murderer ... and they are held up to public ridicule and hatred for adhering to its and his teachings ...

France has a fine tradition of anti-clericalism. You'd think French newspapers would be publishing more cartoons reviling Christianity, Christ, Christians and their leaders these days, wouldn't you?

It's not like there isn't enough material around.

[Bridget Burke]

44. Right. I don't care what weirdo artists do.

Anyone who does can avoid the galleries easily enough. Those who object most strongly have generally avoided galleries all their lives.

But you can't avoid your own city's Newspaper. And most newspapers want to attract readers, not repel them.

[Julius Civitatus]

56. The France Soir is not Paris' only newspaper

There are plenty to choose from. And I guess any artist with a strong opinion on religion is a "weirdo artist" on your book.

Sigh.

[Bridget Burke]

75. I was not using "weirdo" as a pejorative term.

I've gone to Alternative Spaces in condemned warehouses. I've watched Performance Art & lived to tell the tale. I'm grimly amused when self-appointed Moral Guardians are offended by art--when they've obviously never even been to a "mainstream" museum.

If a newspaper decides that they would rather sell newspapers than offend potential readers--that is their business.

[Yupster]

228. I think you just might see some obscure newspaper

print 12 demeaning cartoons of Jesus just to get the publicity fairly soon.

It will be a dud. Nothing will happen.

[AZBlue]

49. Exactly!

Hey, if you don't like it, don't read it. They need to lighten up - they don't run the world, no matter what they think.

[SoCalDem]

57. Sure they do.. just as our fundamentalist clerics try to do..

Every one of our zealots is determined to make the rest of us kowtow to THEIR beliefs.. It's what the whole "family values" crap is all about..

Some centuries back, they would have ridden into town and started hacking heads off..today they use newspapers, pulpits and tv..the assassinations are "virtual", but the effect on society is pretty much the same..

In past times, if you did not want to be hacked to death , you just pretended to believe "their way" and went on about your life..The zealots run everything and tell you what to think and everyone's happy...right?...right?

[lumpy]

31. Graven images ?

Isn't there something about that in the Ten Commandments ?

[pitohui]

34. ask me if i care

if they want to have silly faceless pictures of mohammed in their country, good for them

don't come to my country and tell me what i can write or draw

that is fascism, my friend, and it should never be tolerated just because it puts on a religious mask

[iverglas]

52. funny thing ...

"that is fascism, my friend, and it should never be tolerated just because it puts on a religious mask"

is that what I say on seeing some of the cartoons in question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

... and some of the comments in this thread and smeared all over this site ...

is that is racism, my friend, and it should never be condoned by decent people just because it puts on a freedom-of-speech mask.

[pitohui]

30. boy in the usa you sure do

where do you live?

i see cartoons making fun (and rightly so) of the nutty xtian right all the time

nutty religious extremists of every stripe should rightly be held to laughter and scorn of all, and muslims should not get a free pass because their nutty leaders throw bigger temper tantrums than our nutty leaders

[Paranoid Pessimist]

82. Here's a whole website devoted to ridiculing Jesus

One of my favorite places on the net. Check out his replies to "Hate Mail."



http://www.normalbobsmith.com/

[Robeson]

131. I love that site, too!.....

...it's a riot!..

[madmark]

125. have you ever watched south park?

[Zhade]

222. If such censorship happened, I'll bet Jesus would be rolling in his grave.

NT!

[jseankil]

10. Where were they when Taliban blew up the two Buddahs? /nm

nm

[CottonBear]

11. The radical Muslims were the ones who destroyed the Buddhas. n/t

[Julius Civitatus]

13. Exactly!!!!

They sure can destroy symbols of other religions with impunity (symbols that, by the way, were 2,000 year old works of art, patrimony of humanity, now lost forever.)

[iverglas]

15. "they"?

Need any more be said?

Did the people objecting to the way Mohammed is depicted in some media outlets destroy any symbols of anyone else's religion?

Or are we maybe just engaging in a little ... oh, well, I'll leave the words unsaid, but it's not that hard to imagine a few to apply to the attribution of stereotyped characteristics to members of a group of people based on an irrelevant characteristic of the group ...

To the initial question:

"Where were they when Taliban blew up the two Buddahs?"

-- did someone have an answer? Or was this just a rhetorical device intended to plant the notion that "they" were nowhere to be seen?

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

According to UNESCO Director-General Koïchiro Matsuura, a meeting of ambassadors from the 54 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) was conducted. All OIC states - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, three countries that officially recognised the Taliban government - joined the protest to spare the monuments. However a statement issued by the ministry of religious affairs of Pakistan justified the destruction as being in accordance with Islamic law. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates would later condemn the destruction as "savage."

"Unislamic", by the way, for the same reason depictions of Mohammed are:

In March 2001, according to Agence France Presse in Kabul, the decree declared, "Based on the verdict of the clergymen and the decision of the Supreme Court of the Islamic Emirate (Taliban) all the statues around Afghanistan must be destroyed. All the statues in the country should be destroyed because these statues have been used as idols and deities by the non-believers before. They are respected now and may be turned into idols in future too. Only Allah, the Almighty, deserves to be worshipped, not anyone or anything else."

(not that we have to accept that as the explanation for the destruction, which I do not in any way condone, but it is an explanation for the objection to the statues ... and hey, don't Buddhists who move to Islamic countries have to live by the local rules?)

If anyone would care to engage a discussion of the horrors that have been perpetrated against the patrimony of humanity, and are being perpetrated against humanity itself, by people claiming to be acting on instructions from the Christians' god, and the hypocrisy of Christians who decry other people's desecrations and atrocities, well, just be sure to set aside a goodly chunk of time.

[Bridget Burke]

24. An article appeared in the Houston Chronicle ....

Before the Buddhas were destroyed. The author was an Egyptian studying at Texas A&M. He was appalled at the impending destruction & begged the Taliban to let them be. As an Egyptian, he was proud of his nation's heritage--even the pre-Islamic parts.

Did the Taliban read the article? Probably not. But it let Texans know that not all Muslims are the same. Some folks still have not gotten the message.

[iverglas]

28. "Some folks still have not gotten the message."

Some folks like to hang around the internet blowing crap out their asses, I'm sure you'll agree. Politely as you put it yourself. ;)

There are a couple of people in this thread who get the message -- the message that is actually being conveyed by some of the media material that some Muslims object to. And that message is unadulterated racism, expressed in the stereotyped portrayal of a particular group and the 100% unwarranted assault on their religious beliefs and on persons whom they revere for religious reasons.

Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, Jesus engaging in promiscuous sex and infecting people with HIV. NO DIFFERENCE. People claiming to be acting on the instructions of both individuals are committing atrocities against humanity, and many others defend their actions. And yet we see the first in editorial cartoons, and we don't see the second ... no, surely you don't think that racism on the part of the "artists" and publishers could play a part, do you??

[Julius Civitatus]

55. Yes, "they"

And I don't care what is considered "Islamic" or "unislamic." I do live in a free western society that allows me to speak my mind without fear of retribution. And for that reason we should not buckle to the attempts of a different civilization to impose or restrict my freedoms based on what they considered "islamic or "unislamic." No way.

And by the way, to say that "Christians did it too" doesn't justify your point. That's bullshit.

And here's more crap from your misconstrued arguments:

not that we have to accept that as the explanation for the destruction, which I do not in any way condone, but it is an explanation for the objection to the statues ... and hey, don't Buddhists who move to Islamic countries have to live by the local rules?

Wrong again: Those statues were 2,000 years old. They were there before there was any Islam. Before there was any Mohammed. That part of Afghanistan was Buddhist. But don't let facts get in the way of your arguments.

[iverglas]

60. why would anyone bother?

And by the way, to say that "Christians did it too" doesn't justify your point. That's bullshit.

If only I'd said anything remotely resembling "Christians did it too". Sadly, your characterization of what I said would be the bullshit. My apologies if you didn't understand it.

Wrong again: Those statues were 2,000 years old. They were there before there was any Islam. Before there was any Mohammed. That part of Afghanistan was Buddhist. But don't let facts get in the way of your arguments.

Well thank you! So I guess then I'd just have to say to the person who raised that issue: don't let facts get in the way of your bizarre analogies. (That was kinda what I was saying, but I see it didn't take.)

The cartoons that are objected to are RACIST. They demonize a group of people by portraying their religion and its founder as evil. The destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan hardly did that, did it?

And for that reason we should not buckle to the attempts of a different civilization to impose or restrict my freedoms based on what they considered "islamic or "unislamic." No way.

Now, if only you or any of the other apologists would address the question of why any decent person would publish, or defend the publishing of, racist materials in major daily newspapers.

[AngryAmish]

63. Cartoons are not racist

Since followers of Islam are of every race, depictions are not racist. It may be religious bigotry tho. Minor pedantic point.

[Bridget Burke]

76. Most of the Muslims in France are Arabs...

And I seem to have heard that anti-Arab feeling exists among some French.

[Emendator]

157. Not Arabs

Most of the Muslims in France are Algerians, not Arabs.

[Laughing Mirror]

203. 99% of Algerians are Arabs, according to the CIA

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ag.html#People

[Emendator]

210. Algerians are not Arabs

They are Berbers. Berbers of different ethnic groups and dialects are all over North Africa. The name Algeria is not native to the land, as the original natives called it Tamezgha. Granted, there has been some intermingling. But one of the hot button political issues in Algeria is that of occasional bursts of Berber nationalism, which the government has tried to put down over the years.

Egyptians are also not Arabs. One of the sad things about Islam is that it is nothing more than a vehicle for Arabic imperialism and that it causes a misinformed people to deny their own heritage.

The demographics of the CIA World Factbook are based on information handed to the CIA from the countries, and is therefore, sometimes suspect. For example, Saudi Arabia's file says that the population is 100% Muslim, which is clearly a false claim. Although there is an awful lot of good information there, be wary on using it as the final source.

[Laughing Mirror]

217. Tell that to the Algerians

only 1% of whom are Berber.

[AZBlue]

50. Excellent point.

Such hypocrisy and conceit is beyond absurd. Then they complain because we don't respect them??!

[iverglas]

61. Bears repeating

Such hypocrisy and conceit is beyond absurd.
Then they complain because we don't respect them??!

I think I'll just be applying it to a different crowd.

It could be read thus:

Such hypocrisy and conceit is beyond absurd.
Then we complain because they don't respect us??!

[smirkymonkey]

138. Thank You!

[Kagemusha]

16. I read text from this Le Soir editor in a Brit paper last night...

He really, really went out of his way to publish this JUST to deliberately offend Moslems because he thinks their intolerant religion needs a public spanking. Insulting Moslems was not a side effect, but the primary purpose. He quoted Voltaire, said that in the beginning the Catholic Church was fanatical but it calmed down, and Islam would have to do the same to be accepted and tolerated in the West.

That's kind of pushing it.

[Emendator]

158. Then it's the Muslims' faults for responding like animals

and proving the editors correct. If Muslim emotions can be so easily manipulated, they are heading for a fall.

[Yupster]

229. But isn't that the answer

the protestors will eventually realize that their religion and their prophet get along just fine with the occasional cartoon.

Won't they learn to change the channel or not look or write a letter to the editor when offended like all the rest of us learned long ago.

[tabasco]

17. Religious people should not expect the whole world to

live by their rules.

France Soir has caved in to threats from religious extremists and I condemn them for their cowardice, as other newspapers remain uncowed.

I don't want radical clerics telling my newspaper what it can print. Fuck them!

[Kagemusha]

22. If France Soir does not exist solely to wage war on Islam

then it's not so much caving in. But who am I to say? I don't live in France; I don't know if that is indeed its sole purpose or a twisting of that purpose for the editor's personal views or just for kicks.

[tabasco]

26. A newspaper waging war?

I will just make the bold assumption that the newspaper's sole purpose is not to "wage war" on Islam.

Is printing a cartoon the equivalent of setting off a bomb? Apparently some religious whackos think so.

Is printing a derogatory article "waging war?" The newspaper has the right to print what it wants and enjoy journalistic freedom. People don't have to like what they print, but there is no jutification for threatening newspapers with violence. If radical religious people don't like what the paper prints, they should urge people not to buy it. But to threaten a newspaper with "jihads" and all this other bullshit is insanity. Any Muslim threatening violence because of a cartoon should be condemned MUCH more harshly than a newspaper that prints an inflammatory cartoon. Radical clerics in Iran or wherever should not have censor power over a French newspaper or any newspaper as far as I'm concerned. They shold stick to their religious beliefs and leave everybody else alone.

[Kagemusha]

48. You're not hearing what I said.

The editor who got canned wrote that he was publishing this cartoon for the purpose of... uh, it's a Voltaire quote. Let us once again crush the detestable thing? The detestable thing being Islam.

In other words, the editor knew that Moslems viewed the cartoon as religious violence, and re-published the cartoon in his newspaper for the express purpose of shoving it down the throat of Moslems because radical Islam is detestable.

The owner does not need to be part of THAT. That's not intimidation of a newspaper for something it had already published; that's a newspaper trying to lord it over readers who are already outraged at other newspapers, JUST TO PISS THEM OFF.

It is not necessarily the job of an editor to publish something just to piss religious people off. ...It can be, but that's the call of the owner, and this owner made his call.

The end.

[tabasco]

62. I don't care what the motivations were.

People have a right to get pissed off when someone prints something they don't like.

They DO NOT have the right to threaten violence against the newspaper.

That is my point. Do you disagree with it?

[Kagemusha]

65. No, I do not. I just happen to be talking about the owner firing him.

The owner has that right for legit reasons.

This stuff

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2081787

is bad, bad news. I wouldn't characterize the POWER to do this as a "right" however. Not at all. It's just terror as a response to offense.

[tabasco]

70. Absolutely !

Just as the editor has the right to use bad judgment to print offensive (to some) material - the boss has the right to fire him.

I don't debate that.

But I wanted to see the newspapers keep up a united front in all this.

I really wonder if they fired him for the cartoon, or due to pressure and threats from the radicals.

I doubt that they fired him for the cartoon but rather for the reaction to the cartoon. IMO, that is caving in.


edit typo

[Kagemusha]

112. You would be correct...

and that's why I'm saying, unless this paper has a history of being the world's scourge to Moslems, it's probably because the editor was, far from putting up a united front against censorship, actually deliberately publishing the cartoon because Moslems regarded it as an act of religious hatred, making it all the better since they'd be pissed off more. That's tossing hand grenades because it's fun to hear them go boom.

I think a united front is great but... if one person who is part of the front goes off on his own charging the enemy on his big white horse, the united front is no less broken than if people threw their shields away and ran in panic. No excuse for "our side" to act crazy.

[leftynyc]

174. The irony of being insulted at the cartoon

with a bomb in Muhammad's turban and then threatening violence is just too delicious, especially since newspapers in Muslim countries print hateful things every day. Freedom of expression and of the press are pretty sacred in my mind and I know I wouldn't want to live in a country without those freedoms. The people who are insulted, in turn, have the right to protest.

[iverglas]

180. the irony of people saying

... that it is "ironic" that someone (including people who have done nothing hateful in their entire lives) would be "insulted" at editorial cartoons portraying their revered religious leader as a committer of atrocities, and thus themselves as supporters of the commission of atrocities, "especially since" newspapers in countries where they don't even live do anything at all is ... well, "ironic" isn't actually the word that comes to my mind after all. There really are a whole lot of people "insulted" (read: made reasonably apprehensive of hate-motivated action against themselves and their group) by cartoons like these who don't threaten anything at all.

There are other words altogether for the ascribing of negative characteristics to people based on their race, religion, ethnicity, national origin or membership in any other group.

Freedom of expression and of the press are pretty sacred in my mind and I know I wouldn't want to live in a country without those freedoms.

Human decency has always been pretty sacred in my mind, and I prefer to live in a place where people are not vilified in the media based on their race, religion, ethnicity, national origin or membership in any other group.

If I were already particularly vulnerable because of my membership in a minority group of that nature, I might just not be too impressed with all the nice liberals beating their chests about freedom of the press who haven't got much to say about my security from hate-motivated discrimination and violence.

[madmark]

207. exactly

[Yupster]

231. I also like the irony of

protesting the lack of respect others have for your religion by burning the Danish flag which of course prominently features the cross.

[Yupster]

230. Reminds me of Larry Flynt

in the celebrated case which the movie "The People Versus Larry Flynt" was based on.

When asked why he published a cartoon about Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother, Flynt said it was because he didn't like Falwell and wanted to insult him.

Flynt won the case.

They both went on with their lives.

[fedsron2us]

83. Funny old world

Freedom of expression in the press in Western Europe largely grew out of the struggle for freedom of religious conscience between the 16th and 19th centuries. Without this process Italy, France Spain, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway etc would still be entirely Roman Catholic with their spiritual life controlled from Rome. The Holy Inquisition would determine most issues of belief and would proscribe what literature was permitted. There would be no question of Western European Muslims being offended by caroons published in the press because there would simply be no Western European Muslims to offend. Their religion would be no more tolerated than the practise of Christianity is in modern Saudi Arabia. Those who think that trampling over the freedom of speech is acceptable because they find the views of some offensive should be careful what they wish for.

[barb162]

92. you got it!!!!!

[ButterflyBlood]

20. Too bad

It's a shame they caved. It's called freedom of the press, Muslims need to learn to deal with it. Catholics apparentely can deal with the stuff I've seen in Playboy and some independent magazines portraying priests as pedophiles, Jews apparentely can deal with the disgusting anti-Semetic trash that is published daily in the Middle East, Muslims should be able to deal with this.

[phrenzy]

25. Sorry man...

Fundies are fundies. NEVER bow down to them. The people calling for 'attacks' over this are no different from abortion clinic bombers here in the US.

[lumpy]

27. Disrespect for other religions

is used as a tool for stirring up public resentment for poltical purposes. Apparently it works as exhibited here by some posters.

[slackmaster]

33. I hold all organized religions in equal contempt

:nuke:

[Bridget Burke]

45. Yes, but some Europeans have a special hatred of Islam.

Which is reflected in how they treat many of their Muslim neighbors.

[Julius Civitatus]

58. That's a blanket statement that hides other complex facts

[Bridget Burke]

71. I said "some"

So there are holes in the blanket.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

29. They shouldn't have caved

I don't think religious mockery should be off limits. That includes Christianity, Judaisam, Islam, and any other religion.

[CJCRANE]

39. To me it's a minority issue.

Muslims, just like Jews are the minority in Europe.

A violent depiction of a Jewish prophet would be considered anti-semitic hate speech so it's not surpising that muslims are angry at this depiction of their prophet.

[Chrisduhfur]

40. Well...

First of "weeeeeeeeeeee" I remembered my username & password, lol. Ok anyways, sure they have every right to be upset and I am sure that if it was Christians or Jews who were depicted then they would be crying about it. However, I don't think the mainstream of those groups would be asking for their people to take hostages or to attack people. That would be like the Christian fundies in the States threatening to blow up movie theaters that showed Harry Potter movies. It wouldn't happen.

[CJCRANE]

43. Two wrongs don't make a right.

If there are muslims threatening violence in retaliation then that's wrong too.

[Chrisduhfur]

66. Yes.

And that is the primary issue here. I don't fault them for be offended by the cartoon(even though I find hyper-sensitivity to be rediculous... yeah I am cold hearted and ain't even to being politically correct) but they are only reinforcing the stereotype that these cartoons were portraying. I really hope that some of their leaders step up and tell them to back down. It would be very bad for the Muslim world if this escalates into more. If they take hostages, bomb or setfire to European & European interests then they will lose a lot of support. Hell, if they start riots in Europe and start kidnapping people then they will be giving the anti-muslim folk exactly what they want.

[Hatalles]

99. This is an important part of the issue.

There would still be controversy if these cartoons were published in a predominantly Muslim country by Muslim cartoonists... but it would be nowhere near as massive.

[fakeshemp]

173. So should we censor criticism of Scientology?

After all, Scientologists are a minority in Europe. Or why just stick to religious ideology, why not protect minority political ideologies- Greens? Communists? Fascists?

[iverglas]

181. so you're just making shit up

and pretending to think someone else believes it?

So should we censor criticism of Scientology?
After all, Scientologists are a minority in Europe.

In what dictionary does the false depiction of an individual as a committer of atrocities constitute "criticism"?

Or why just stick to religious ideology, why not protect minority political ideologies- Greens? Communists? Fascists?

That's actually an interesting question. In fact, human rights legislation in general tends to protect religious belief to an extent not afforded to political belief, e.g. Religion tends to be treated in the same way as race, sex, national origin, etc., which are all inherent and immutable characteristics in ways that religion is not. (And I have certainly argued that anyone who rejects protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation on the ground that sexual orientation is a choice would have to give up protection from discrimination on the ground of religion for the same reason.)

However, few people actually do choose their religion. Most people acquire their religion in the same way they acquire their language: through the lifelong instruction conveyed by their family, their community, their culture, their society. What religion they profess is no more a "choice" than what language they speak. They could choose to remake their entire selves by professing a different religion or speaking another language -- but why should they? To make someone else happy?

Of course, you've asked the wrong question anyway. I don't think anyone here has objected to "criticism" of a religion, let alone, of course, honest criticism. Falsely portraying individuals revered in a religion as mass murderers doesn't actually constitute "criticism", you see.

[CJCRANE]

188. If you look at the cartoons

they show racial stereotypes of arabs so it's quite clear which race the insult is aimed at in this case.

[muriel_volestrangler]

190. Stereotypes? They show an Arab, which Mohammed was

in that they show him in Arab clothing. I can't see any personal characteristics in them you could say have been exaggerated. No, I don't think this is aimed at a race. I doubt that the majority of Muslims in Denmark are ethnically Arab:

In the 1970s Muslims arrived from Turkey, Pakistan, Morocco and the former Yugoslavia to work. In the 1980s and 90s the majority of Muslim arrivals were refugees and asylum seekers from Iran, Iraq, Somalia and Bosnia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4385768.stm#denmark

Only Morrocco and Iraq are Arabic countries in that list, and they have significant non-Arabic populations (eg Kurds, who would be quite likely to be among the Iraqi refugees).

[Orangeone]

211. I believe

Scientology is banned in Germany.

[LisaM]

42. The French have a large Arab population

so it matters more, particularly since they had colonized Algeria and have attracted a large Muslim populations as workers. It's not just a question of Muslims choosing to move there, over other countries - it's a place to which they have historical ties. So I don't think it's the same as if the cartoon had been published somewhere else. That said, I do not understand the ban on showing Mohammed's image, but I do know that I was absolutely shocked once at a friend's slideshow, where a poor Muslim woman was hiding her face while they were taking her picture, and they were laughing about how Muslims don't like their images shown.

[CJCRANE]

47. I don't think it's so much the ban on images IMHO

it's more the fact that the cartoons show pictures like Mohammed with a bomb on his head. What would devout Jews say if European newspapers showed a picture of Moses with a bomb on his head?

They wouldn't be very happy and rightly so.

[Chrisduhfur]

64. But if that happened.

Would the Jews or Christians be running around with guns threating to take hostages and blow stuff up? I think that is the primary problem that people are having here. I mean hey, boycott the news papers, hold protests or whatever but don't freaking kidnap people because you don't like what their papers said....

[iverglas]

72. "if that happened"

Would the Jews or Christians be running around with guns threating to take hostages and blow stuff up? I think that is the primary problem that people are having here.

And some of us, and a lot of Muslims, think that the primary problem is that it ONLY happens to Muslims. That's kinda the point, and the evidence of the racist motivation.

(To the semantics cop (I say affectionately, being a nit-picker myself) in a reply to one of my other posts: yes, we don't have a specific word for ethnicity-based hatred. But the point is that this really is not just religious bigotry, it is, arguably primarily, and like what is called anti-Semitism, hatred based on ethnicity, which we tend to subsume under "race". Religion is the hook it hangs its hat on, as it not infrequently does.)

[Chrisduhfur]

73. I don't see how anyone can think that.

I don't see how anyone can think this only happens to Muslim. I've seen numerous cartoons mocking Christianity. Hell, just look in some of the Arab Media's papers and view some of the things they say about the Jews. But like I said though, the problem isn't that they are offended by this because that is their right. People can be offended by whatever they want. It the way they are handling it that is the problem, or at least the way they seem to want to handle it.

[Colorado Blue]

108. That isn't true, though - that this only happens to Muslims.

You should see some of the depictions of Jews in the English press. And, I've seen posters from peace rallies with hideous depictions of Jews, "Zionists" portrayed a swastika bedecked devils and burning Israeli flags bedecked with swastikas.

Pope jokes - those are actually not uncommon. We have lots of laughs on the Left especially, about certain Christians.

Perhaps Muslims feel that they alone are being picked on but that isn't true. In fact the Middle East is notorious for truly hideous antisemitism and Hindus and Buddhists haven't been spared either, and Christians and Animists are openly persecuted in some regions.

Nevertheless I understand that bigotry smarts. It really hurts to be the victim of an ethnic or religious slur and complaining is warranted and I see nothing wrong with sensitivity to other people, other cultures. In fact I think it's a virtue in a shrinking world. But theocratic belief systems don't trump free speech in a democratic state.

However, there are cartoons and there is hate speech. Sometimes there's a fine line between them. If something is really bigoted, deliberately so, people SHOULD complain. But, up to the point of deliberate racism, people need to have a sense of humor and a sense of proportion, or we'll all go nuts.

[Hatalles]

114. The controversy wouldn't be so huge if we were dealing with...

... a standard stereotypical Muslim/Arab figure instead of depicting Muhammad like this. Cartoons like these are done all the time. There would still be outrage, yes... but nothing like what we're seeing now.

[Colorado Blue]

155. Excellent point. Thanks.

[iverglas]

118. forgive me if I lose patience

You should see some of the depictions of Jews in the English press.

Like, the Telegraph? the Guardian? the London Times? Some other widely-read, widely-respected daily?

And, I've seen posters from peace rallies with hideous depictions of Jews, "Zionists" portrayed a swastika bedecked devils and burning Israeli flags bedecked with swastikas.

And posters carried by individuals at rallies are equivalent to editorial cartoons in one of the largest daily newspapers in a country ... how?

(And btw, you can put "Zionist" in quotation marks all you like, but Zionist does not equal Jew, Israel does not equal Jews, and the Israeli flag does not equal Mohammed.)

Pope jokes - those are actually not uncommon. We have lots of laughs on the Left especially, about certain Christians.

Well, I guess first we'd have to agree that portraying Mohammed as having a bomb under his turban is a "joke". I'm afraid we don't.

As I've repeatedly said, I'm not inquiring about "Pope jokes", I'm inquiring about portrayals of Jesus as responsible for / participating in any of the atrocities committed in his name.

Perhaps Muslims feel that they alone are being picked on but that isn't true. In fact the Middle East is notorious for truly hideous antisemitism and Hindus and Buddhists haven't been spared either, and Christians and Animists are openly persecuted in some regions.

And in Sri Lanka, the Buddhists have engaged in genocidal practices against the Hindus, etc. etc. It's the same the whole world over, eh? And this justifies the actions of the French and Danish press ... how? And justifies demands that Muslims put up with hateful speech directed at them in Europe ... how?

Cripes. On the one hand they're told that if they "move to" these "free countries", they should be ready to put up and shut up. And on the other they're expected to put up with and shut up about things that nobody else seems to have to put up with and shut up about.

Nevertheless I understand that bigotry smarts.

If only that were the only issue here; if only speech never had any effect. Hate-motivated action does more than smart, and speech such as the speech in issue here exacerbates the risk of such action occurring.

But theocratic belief systems don't trump free speech in a democratic state.

I don't think I, myself, have suggested that they do or should. I just don't think that dressing hate speech as anything other than hate speech is civil.

If we want to oppose any limitation on hate speech, let's say so. Just let's not pretend that hate speech is anything other than what it is, and is motivated by anything other than what it's motivated by, and has none of the effects it is so plainly intended to have.

However, there are cartoons and there is hate speech. Sometimes there's a fine line between them. If something is really bigoted, deliberately so, people SHOULD complain. But, up to the point of deliberate racism, people need to have a sense of humor and a sense of proportion, or we'll all go nuts.

Apparently you agree.

[Colorado Blue]

154. I guess I'm confused. What are you trying to say exactly?

[Colorado Blue]

160. Hmmmm. Confusion.

I suppose the ability to see shades of gray has somehow escaped our mutual conversation, though I think we agree fundamentally.

Let me try and explain. As you say I essentially agree that hate speech is hate speech - but that certain things might be offensive but not necessarily be motivated either by hate, or have as an object, the creation or reinforcement of hate or the demonization of a people or a religion.

I think the Danish cartoons are offensive but not hateful. Political cartoons are often offensive. Does this mean they're all reflective of hate? Or are they just nasty? I think there are degrees, both in intention and in kind.

And, I believe in a free press, with limits as mentioned. For example, the Germans and Austrians have pretty much outlawed the Nazi party. It may seem like an infringement of freedom but they've had horrible experiences.

***

As to a couple of the other issues you mention:

You discuss the violence in Asia, when I mention bigotry in the Islamic world, and ask how that justifies bigotry in Denmark.

Huh? There is no justification for bigotry. But if you're going to discuss violence in Asia, suggesting that it justifies bigotry in Islam, then one could also mention terrorism as a justification for bigotry in Denmark.

Frankly, I think the Danish cartoons have more to do with strangeness, with "fear of the other", indeed with fear period - than with hatred. I think there's a real misunderstanding between our worlds, and this is finding expression in many ways - some quite dangerous. That doesn't mean they're all motivated by hatred. Fear, misunderstanding, ignorance - those are important factors also.

And, I think xenophobia and a fear of change, are also factors in the Islamic world as well. Combine that with a completely different way of seeing and dealing with the world, and there's plenty of room for misunderstanding. It isn't all intentional.

***

You asked, with respect to antisemitism: Like, the Telegraph? the Guardian? the London Times? widely-read, widely-respected daily?

*Yes. Widely respected dailies, which also featured some extremely offensive speeches by major British political figures.

I won't make you ill with some of the speeches and cartoons from the Middle East but some cartoons are linked in this thread.

But you should be aware that attacks on Jewish people and institutions rose alarmingly in Britain and throughout Europe in the past few years. The US State Department links this directly to continuous negative press about Israel. This is clearly a case of big media having a big (and sadly, not unfamiliar) effect.

Nevertheless, freedom of the press wasn't responsible for the abuses of the Nazis or the Soviets - but rather, its opposite. As long as people are free to bitch about the powerful, the scary, we have a prayer.

***

With respect to the Danish cartoons, I can well see how they could, were they of sufficient beauty or ugliness or power, influence people to hate Muslims. They're not in that category. Shouldn't we save our anger for those that are?

And meanwhile - don't we all - Westerners and Muslims alike, owe it to ourselves to find meaningful ways to communicate? Violence certainly isn't one of them. Truly, I'm dismayed on the one hand that these cartoons have created such a tsuris. But on the other hand, if they lead people to a better understanding of one another - then they've actually done a great deed - they accomplished the opposite of hate speech. They've actually done what a free press is uniquely equipped to do. They've caused people to COMMUNICATE.

***

You said, "And posters carried by individuals at rallies are equivalent to editorial cartoons in one of the largest daily newspapers in a country ... how?

(And btw, you can put "Zionist" in quotation marks all you like, but Zionist does not equal Jew, Israel does not equal Jews, and the Israeli flag does not equal Mohammed.)"

*They're not equivalent in scope but they count because they reflect the fact that an ancient scourge of Western civilization, far from having died out, is on the rise again. And, they get press coverage, including TV coverage, so they're not as limited in scope as you might think.

You're damn right they count, especially since they were created and displayed by people who'd like to consider themselves progressives.

Talk about hypocritical. And don't go with the Zionist/Jewish hairsplitting. It won't wash. One poster I saw also featured Jewish boys, with kippahs and prayer shawls. This reflects a much deeper, more destructive type of bigotry than the intercultural problems between the West and the Islamic world - one that has cost millions of lives for 2,000 years. And, the Star of David is one of the key symbols of Judaism. Considering our history, painting a Star of David with a swastika is an act of pure hatred. It's evil.

In time I think the West and the Islamic world will come to know each other better. But will either world ever forgive the Jews for existing?

***

I've examined them and I do not think the political cartoons in the Danish paper were hate-motivated. I do not think they were intended to demonize. Nor do they deserve a fatwa and nor do they deserve threats of violence and war. A certain amount of irreverance and crudity is part of the value of a free press. Demystifying the powerful, the scary, is part of the cartoonist's arsenal.

I have seen cartoons which really DO intend to demonize. These Danish cartoons reflect misunderstanding, they stereotype, and I can understand how they would upset people. They are not cause for WWIII, though I think the one with the bomb turban is upsetting, for sure. But terror bombings are also upsetting, especially when they're committed in the name of God. Doesn't a cartoonist have a right to talk about that?

***

Moreover I think we should consider carefully, shades of gray, save the hatespeech speech for when it's truly warranted. I've seen cartoons of Muslims that are really, truly horrible, actions against Muslims that truly reek. There are degrees and we in the democratic west must respect them and also respect the fact that people in democratic societies agree to disagree, RESPECTFULLY. We don't pull out the fatwa every time we are upset and nor do we threaten each other with violence. We have PENS.

And when it's warranted - we have laws and we have the means to enforce them. Unlike many societies, this includes protecting the weak, the minorities - who in our culture have EQUAL RIGHTS and are not just "tolerated" - for a price and under certain circumstances.

And finally, we in the democratic west have deliberately chosen to be somewhat irreverant. We have limited the power of God and King.

Deliberately. Humor is a part of that limitation. We choose to limit the power of God and King because our society evolved, painfully, from theocratic monarchies.

These cartoons are not in the same category as the naked bigotry I've seen elsewhere, directed at Muslims and at other groups of people. I think, when the Muslim world gets more used to our world, they'll see that too, and be better able to deal both with real hatred that they confront, and with the raucous and often bruising world of a democratic state. And maybe, we can learn to be more respectful of others, as well.

Does this make sense?

[iverglas]

182. jottings

Sadly, I'm here at 6 a.m. because I have work to do by noon.

But if you're going to discuss violence in Asia, suggesting that it justifies bigotry in Islam, then one could also mention terrorism as a justification for bigotry in Denmark.

Excuse me, but I didn't do that. I added to the litany of abuses around the world by pointing out that even the nice peaceful beatific Buddhists have committed atrocities against minorities in their midst. (I myself, of course, would say that the government of Sri Lanka and its supporters have done that, and lay the acts at their doorstep, not at the doorstep of Buddhism or Buddha.) I didn't suggest that anything justified anything else. So no justification for bigotry in Denmark could be based on anything I said.

I think the Danish cartoons are offensive but not hateful.

Well, eye of the beholder and all that. I consider anything that ascribes negative characteristics based on race, religion, ethnicity, etc., to be hateful, and to be calculated to incite hateful action. The fact is this is always a lie -- no one's negative characteristics are caused by his/her race, religion, ethnicity, etc., and no race or religion or ethnicity is the cause of any evil in the world -- and there has to be some motivation for telling lies, and these are simply not little white lies meant to spare anyone suffering. What they're meant to spare people is responsibility for their own thoughts and actions; they're meant to legitimize people's own hate.

And the defiant publishing of such things for the express purpose of provoking the people they're directed at -- even any that are merely "insulting" -- is itself hateful. It is subjecting those people to social conditions that members of other groups do not have to tolerate.

And, I believe in a free press, with limits as mentioned.

Freedom of the press does not make the press exempt from criticism, or relieve it of responsibility for what it publishes. Just like freedom of speech.

I'm not planning to attack any media outlets. I don't condone the use of violence in such circumstances. I'm also not at daily risk of the negative consequences that such calculated, hateful representations of myself in the media lead to. I'd note that the vast majority of people who are at such risk also aren't attacking any media outlets.

With respect to the Danish cartoons, I can well see how they could, were they of sufficient beauty or ugliness or power, influence people to hate Muslims. They're not in that category. Shouldn't we save our anger for those that are?

I can't imagine why anyone would not see the entire context of these editorial cartoons -- the cartoons themselves, the stated or glaringly obvious intent with which they were published, the social/political atmosphere into which they were inserted -- as making them quite influential for that purpose indeed.

There are degrees and we in the democratic west must respect them and also respect the fact that people in democratic societies agree to disagree, RESPECTFULLY.

What matter for disagreement is there here? Is whether Mohammed was a mass murderer a matter of contention? I'd say that such a depiction is quite simply false -- besides being a very far cry from respectful. And I'd say that the intent behind publication of such a depiction is really quite obvious.

Humor is a part of that limitation. We choose to limit the power of God and King because our society evolved, painfully, from theocratic monarchies.

Well ... there is no god, so s/he/it doesn't come into it. And we're not talking about the king here, that's the thing. We're talking about the press, and the power thereof. The press is neither god nor king. And in this instance, the press is neither criticizing nor ridiculing the king, it is ridiculing and lying about those vulnerable members of the society you mentioned.

... I think the one with the bomb turban is upsetting, for sure. But terror bombings are also upsetting, especially when they're committed in the name of God. Doesn't a cartoonist have a right to talk about that?

I think we can all agree that we all have the right to do any number of things. Many of us also agree that quite a number of them shouldn't be done, and that people who do them should expect to be held accountable in public opinion, at the least.

The question is: what leads to this juxtaposition of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and terror bombings? Where is the connection, what is the cartoonist saying? Tsunamis are also upsetting. Why not a cartoon of Mohammed causing a tsunami? Does the fact that a tiny handful of people commit terror bombings and claim to do it in the name of their deity or its prophets support making some logical connection between the deity/prophets and terror bombing, that can then be honesty criticized or even ridiculed? Would an honest depiction of the deity/prophet not involve somewhat the opposite of what was actually presented? Is it actually "criticism" of doing violence in the name of religion to portray the deity/prophets of the religion as committing the violence?

In some circumstances, it just might be. But those circumstances really do not pertain here. The editorial cartoon in question really was not intended to provoke thought about the absurdity and offensiveness of doing violence in the name of religion. It was quite plainly intended to associate that violence with that religion. And the very obvious consequence of making, or validating, that association in the minds of considerable numbers of the public is to inflame hatred, and I don't see any reason to relieve the ones who publish such things of responsibility for the unavoidably obviously foreseeable consequences of their actions. Speech is, after all, an act.

I think, when the Muslim world gets more used to our world, they'll see that too, and be better able to deal both with real hatred that they confront, and with the raucous and often bruising world of a democratic state.

I think that at present they quite reasonably see a very unfair share of the bruises being raised on their own bodies, and that encouraging the acts that put them there isn't actually a very clever way of getting someone "used to" the process that causes them, nor can it even be honestly claimed to be a part of any process inherent in liberal democracy.

[Colorado Blue]

193. I guess what you're saying is that it works both ways. And I

agree with that.

Also I was thinking later last night, that bigotry is in the eye of the person who feels offended. So if people are offended it doesn't really matter what WE think, it matters what THEY think.

That's the real bottom line here.

[napsi]

216. Perhaps I have lost patience

with people who are always a victim no matter the circumstance. The fact remains all fundies no matter which God they believe in have an agenda and they are all dangerous. Please grow a spine and get back to me at a later date.

[iverglas]

232. perhaps I don't give a shit

since nothing you have said had anything to do with anything I have said.

Perhaps I have lost patience with people who are always a victim no matter the circumstance.

I imagine that people who are tired of being used for target practice by the fascist/racist right wing don't give a shit either.

The fact remains all fundies no matter which God they believe in have an agenda and they are all dangerous.

And the fact remains that the target of these fascist/racist editorial commentaries, in the disingenuous form of cartoons, is ALL Muslims.

Please grow a spine and get back to me at a later date.

I'll get back to you whenever seems useful, and have no need of advice from the likes of you. If you choose to grow whatever it would take for you to acknowledge the meaning behind these editorial commentaries and their obvious and intended effect, don't hesitate to let me know.

I remain astounded that so many people seem so unable to recognize what the fascist/racist right wing gets up to, even when it's shoved in their faces.

[iverglas]

67. Let's look at some of the cartoons

Few here seem to have bothered.

First:

That said, I do not understand the ban on showing Mohammed's image, ... and they were laughing about how Muslims don't like their images shown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

Islamic tradition bans any depiction of the prophets either in drawing or statues, even respectful ones, out of concern that such images could lead to idolatry, and thus worshipping of Muhammad instead of the One God.

It was pointed out in another post that sometimes the ban is extended to any living creature, and it is easily understandable that allowing one's own image to be captured/published could be seen as immodest to the point of idolatry of one's self.

So here are some of the cartoons published in Denmark (I don't know that anyone here, me included, has seen the French cartoon), with a description. (Excuse the screwed-up vowels; I do French accents, not Danish, and they didn't copy.)

The twelve drawings were drawn by twelve different caricaturists, after an invitation from Jyllands-Posten for around forty different artists to give their interpretation on how Muhammad may have looked. Each of the twelve drawings portrays Muhammad in a different fashion. In the clockwise direction:

The face of Muhammad as a part of the Islamic star and crescent symbol, his right eye the star.

The most controversial drawing shows Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, with a lit fuse and the Islamic creed written on the bomb.

Muhammad standing with a halo in the shape of a crescent moon.

An abstract drawing of crescent moons and Stars of David, and a poem on oppression of women "Profet! Med kuk og knald i laget som holder kvinder under aget!". In English the poem could be read as: "Prophet! daft and dumb, keeping woman under thumb"

Muhammad as a wanderer, with a donkey.

One shows a nervous caricaturist, shakingly drawing Muhammad while looking over his shoulder.

Two angry Muslims charge forward with sabres and bombs, while Muhammad addresses them with: "Rolig, venner, nar alt kommer til alt er det jo bare en tegning lavet af en vantro sanderjyde" (loosely, "Relax guys, it's just a drawing made by some infidel South Jutlander"). A South Jutlander is a person from South Jutland; the reference is to a common Danish expression for a person from the middle of nowhere, which is how many Danes regard South Jutland.

An Oriental looking boy in front of a blackboard, pointing to the Farsi chalkings, which translate into "the editorial team of Jyllands-Posten is a bunch of reactionary provocateurs". The boy is labelled "Mohammed, Valby school, 7.A", implying that this Muhammed is a Danish second-generation immigrant rather than the man Muslims believe was a prophet. On his shirt is written "Fremtiden" (the future). According to the editor of Jyllands Posten, he didn't know what was written on the blackboard before it was published.

Another drawing shows Muhammad with a knife and a black bar over his eyes. He is flanked by two women in burqas. Muhammad standing on a cloud, greeting dead suicide bombers with "Stop Stop vi er labet tar for Jomfruer!" ("Stop, stop, we ran out of virgins!"), an allusion to the promised reward to martyrs.

Another shows Kare Bluitgen, wearing a turban with the proverbial orange dropping, with the inscription "Publicity stunt". An "orange in the turban" is a Danish proverb meaning "a stroke of luck." In his hand is a stick drawing of Muhammad.

Good clean fun, not likely to create/validate viciously racist beliefs about a minority group in anyone's mind, certainly.

And not much different from racist cartoon images of African-Americans during an earlier period of the US's history, that I don't think even the free-speech flag-wavers here would be defending. Lordy, if a newspaper in the US today published this sort of filth about, oh, white men, just imagine what would ensue.

[fedsron2us]

93. Since when have Muslims been a race

Even as a benighted European I can spot that they are not all identical. I work in an office with three Muslims. One is a Black African, one is from Pakistan and one is from Bosnia. Apart from their faith they have almost nothing in common.

[Hatalles]

100. Xenophobia is xenophobia.

Play around with semantics all you want. Hate is hate.

[Chrisduhfur]

104. Sarcasm or satire is sarcasm or satire.

Maybe I am a insensitive prick but I think people need to lighten up. I say the exact same thing to the Christian fundies who get their panties in a wad over stupid crap like this. Toughen up and stop letting cartoons hurt your feelings.

[fedsron2us]

126. But a pipe is not a pipe

You seem to be the one with the stereotype problem with this peculiar Muslim/Arab hybrid you keep mentioning in your posts. The majority of the worlds Muslims are not Arab and not all Arabs are Muslim.

[Hatalles]

134. Where is the Muslim/Arab hybrid in my posts?

I'm very well aware of the diverse makeup of Muslims all around the world. I'm also aware of the deeply rooted concept of "Ummah" in Islam.

[iverglas]

102. et tu

I guess you missed my response to the first pointless comment on this point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2080827&mesg_id=2081857

... and the numerous times in the thread I referred to racial/religious/ethnic bigotry/hatred, etc. Perhaps you'd like to coin an appropriate term for the hatred of members of a group based on their intermingled ethnic/religious/cultural/racial characteristics. Or maybe you could just go complain to someone about how "homophobia" doesn't mean hatred of homosexuals ...

[Hatalles]

68. This claim of "free speech" is completely bogus.

Have we lost all decency and respect for others? These cartoons are attacks. Were the NY Times to publish these cartoons (http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/cartoons/homepage.htm) there'd be outrage as well. The "free speech" card is the same argument that is used to attack minorities in the US today.

[CJCRANE]

74. Yes, it's clearly anti-semitic racist claptrap

(and before anyone corrects me - both jews and arabs are of the semite race).

I'm all for criticing religion - but not in a way that denigrates or stereotypes a whole minority group.

[Behind the Aegis]

110. use the term correctly then...

Discrimination against Arabs is simply called anti-Arab bigotry. However, bigotry against Muslims is called Islamaphobia. Bigotry against Jew is called anti-Semitism, which has nothing to do with race, other than the erroneous origin of the word itself. Using the word other ways or pretending it means something it does not is itellectually dishonest.

[CJCRANE]

116. Semites are a race that encompass

both indigenous israelis and arabs.

Physical caricatures of jews and arabs are based on semitic stereotypes.

[Behind the Aegis]

161. I know that.

I didn't dispute that issue.

[Spinoza]

195. You are wrong about the definition

of "Anti-Semitism". The word itself was invented and first used by Wilhelm Marr in 1879. Marr was an anarchist who founded the "Anti-Semitic League" and coined the term "anti-Semitism" as a euphemism for existing German Judenhass, or "Jew-hate". Despite the fact that both Arabs and Jews can be called "semites" the word never had, or was intended to convey, any reference whatsoever to Arabs and only and always referred to hatred of Jews.

[iverglas]

122. lordy

bigotry against Muslims is called Islamaphobia.

Now, you know that's not so. Islamophobia is a fear of Islam.

Using the word other ways or pretending it means something it does not is itellectually dishonest.

So, what would you say about attempts to portray the incitement of hatred of a group of people based on false representations of their inherent/cultural characteristics as just a little joke?



is what I'd say.

[Behind the Aegis]

164. good grief

So, homophobia is simply the fear of homosexuals? I don't think so. I think the term is understood to encompass more than "fear." Anti-semitism only pertains to Jews, no one else. That is what the term means. The arguments about the Semite race is a red herring, unless one is talking about how the word came into existence. So the argument about the Semite race is as fallacious argument as saying 'homophobia' is really about the fear and bigotry leveled against humans because the root "homo-" can also mean "of mankind."

Your second question makes no sense. I said nothing about the current controversy. I was correcting a posters misuse of a word. So, your attempt to extrapolate something from my correction is more akin (in reverse) to your picture, then any comment I have made.

[iverglas]

79. yuppers; simple and obvious, ain't it?

Stereotype a group based on a characteristic its members exhibit (they like watermelons; they revere Mohammed) ... portray them as stupid/evil ... sit back and watch.

It's better if you can protray them as evil rather than just stupid, of course. That way it will be okay not just to refuse to hire them or let them vote, you'll actually have good grounds for committing violence against them at home and bombing them abroad.

[madmark]

127. putting the bomb in mohamed's turban is a perfect way to illustrate

a very real problem islam has in the world today and that is it has been hijacked by a violent medeivalist anti-western sunni sect (wahabis). In some ways its like a more extreme version of the hijacking of christianity by the christian right in this county; but then again christians have been killing people in the name of christ for a long before the religious right ever showed up.

[Hatalles]

130. When you put a bomb on Muhammad's head...

... you put a bomb over every Muslim's head... not just the fundies. As I explained in another post, Muhammad is a figure revered by all Muslims -- the fundies, moderates, and liberal Muslims. Depicting him in such a fashion is broad-brushing every Muslim with those stereotypical notions.

[napsi]

156. Ok, so ......

depicting Christ in a beaker of urine is Ok?.....Fundies of any kind are fair game.....no more PC shit here.....Screw all the fundies of any religion. Left up to them 99% of the population would be incinerated, shot, blow up or decapitated.

[barb162]

167. This is about the right to a free press and the use of satire

in cartoons, whether offensive or not. When editors have to tiptoe around everyone who may be offended, they may as well close up shop.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hatalles]

94. Way to win over hearts and minds, kiddo.

Sometimes I can't tell the difference between freepers and DUers.

[saigon68]

97. Start Here

http://www.mallofchrist.com

[Straight Shooter]

113. I laugh in spite of myself

I guess I'm not the good little Catholic girl I used to be :7

[saigon68]

129. Yes the web is really wide

Its all over the world

:-)

[dmallind]

103. I see a bit of both sides

but not much of the "it's horrible racism" version.

They were asked to draw a caricature of Mohammed. Mohammed was a man of a specific race. Should he be drawn as a blue eyed Teuton? No - that is ridiculous (as ridiculous in fact as drawing Jesus, looking like Robert Powell). Therefore any caricature of Mohammed must look Arabic. This does NOT mean all Arabs are the target. Does a caricature of Bush target all whites? All Americans? Even all Republicans? No - it targets Bush. Racism is a week argument in this case because if criticism of an Arab, even a revered Arab, is racist against all Arabs, then we can never criticize a person without criticizing their entire race - which is absurd.

Now - how do we caricature? We exaggerate the most noteworthy feature of the subject. In a caricature designed to be critical we exaggerate the most noteweothy negative aspect. This said, even if Mohammed was the most peaceful and benign of men, which even the Qu'ran does not portray, his most negative aspect is surely the violence generated in certain misguided of his followers. We do not know if he had a huge nose or crossed eyes, but we know that people - many of them - whether theologically misguided or not, are willing to blow things up in his name. The same could very easily be said of JC albeit to a lesser extent in recent years (McVeigh and Rudolph notwithstanding). This caricature is both valid and specific - it caricatures Muhammed (not all Arabs) as an inspiration to his most fanatically misguided jihadi followers (not all Muslims) to blow things up.

Now I accord all religions equal consideration - which is exactly the same as all car companies, all Scottish clans, all Rotary clubs, all any organizations. No more and no less. The idea that Jesus has not been equally and in fact more scurrilously attacked is absurd.

South Park has a viewership that exceeds any Danish or French newspaper by orders of magnitude. It has shown Jesus as a ruthless killer (of Muslims no less), as a hopeless brawler, as a clueless dope, and many other things. Not to mention the episodes that show menstruating statues of the virgin Mary and so on. These offend me in EXACTLY the same measure as Mohammed caricatures, which is NOT AT ALL. Not my ox being gored? Hell what about the "eating with your ass" episode that shows atheists (me included if we assume all caricatures are equally generic) as literally talking crap out of their mouths.

Responses to these, sometimes even nastier, attacks?

Atheists? Ranged from laughter to a few "those South Park bastards" comments at the next atheist meetings.

Catholics? Ranged from nothing (perhaps some laughter somewhere) to organized outrage and calls for the episode to be pulled, which were partially successful

Muslims? Ranged from presumably nothing (as there are a billion plus muslims not all of whom had any response) to death threats against newspaper editors, cartoonists and so on.

So yep the Muslims who reacted with outrage do need to grow a thicker skin and realize their own taboos do not and cannot be expected to apply to others. Those who reacted with death threats need to be arrested and jailed.

Yep the catholics who responded with outrage need to develop the same damn thicker skin as the Muslims who were outraged, for the exact same damn reason - your taboos are not everyone's. Get over it.

And yes to be complete the atheists who grumbled need to develop a better sense of either humor or proportion at their choice. Cartoons criticizing opinions, no matter how firmly held, are still just cartoons.

No special consideration for ANY group or opinion should ever be tolerated in a free speech world. Speech is either free or it isn't.

[iverglas]

111. if only there were a point in there

I see a bit of both sides
but not much of the "it's horrible racism" version.

They were asked to draw a caricature of Mohammed. Mohammed was a man of a specific race. Should he be drawn as a blue eyed Teuton? No - that is ridiculous (as ridiculous in fact as drawing Jesus, looking like Robert Powell). Therefore any caricature of Mohammed must look Arabic.

Dandy. Now -- do all Muslims have bombs under their turban?

THAT is how one of the subject cartoons portrayed Mohammed.

Read all about it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2080827&mesg_id=2081829

This caricature is both valid and specific - it caricatures Muhammed (not all Arabs) as an inspiration to his most fanatically misguided jihadi followers (not all Muslims) to blow things up.

Sorry, that doesn't even make sense. First, the cartoon in question doesn't even begin to qualify as "caricature", because it does not feature an actual characteristic of the figure in question. It is a false representation of that figure, and by misrepresenting him it misrepresents what his self-described followers believe/do, and exposes them to the hatred that most people would feel for people who believe/do such things.

It has shown Jesus as a ruthless killer (of Muslims no less), as a hopeless brawler, as a clueless dope, and many other things. Not to mention the episodes that show menstruating statues of the virgin Mary and so on.

The only one of those that is comparable to the cartoons to which I refer is the first. If Jesus was portrayed that way, the portrayal was arguably ill-advised. Nonetheless: Christians are not at significant risk of harm in the society in question because of ethnic/religious/cultural hatred; and no one else really subscribes to that view of Jesus anyway (as has been pointed out here, Muslims revere him) so no one else's prejudices are likely to be validated/exacerbated.

Catholics? Ranged from nothing (perhaps some laughter somewhere) to organized outrage and calls for the episode to be pulled, which were partially successful

Of course, Roman Catholics, despite the dishonest noise made by a tiny minority of them, are not a vulnerable/disadvantaged group in the US. They are therefore not like the Muslims who were the victims of the cartoons in Europe

So yep the Muslims who reacted with outrage do need to grow a thicker skin

That's quite the mantra, heard quite a bit hereabouts. "Grow a thicker skin". Such a liberal sentiment.

I'm constantly reminded of how glad I am that I'm not a liberal.

[rayofreason]

162. ...victims of the cartoons in Europe.

Oh Puleeeeze!!

Post 103 hit the nail on the head. South Park has done far worse than these cartoons to Christian religious sensibilities, but nobody is threatening to blow up Apple for selling South Park on iTunes.

[dmallind]

196. Well that's not true.

ME --This caricature is both valid and specific - it caricatures Muhammed (not all Arabs) as an inspiration to his most fanatically misguided jihadi followers (not all Muslims) to blow things up.

RESPONSE---Sorry, that doesn't even make sense. First, the cartoon in question doesn't even begin to qualify as "caricature", because it does not feature an actual characteristic of the figure in question. It is a false representation of that figure, and by misrepresenting him it misrepresents what his self-described followers believe/do, and exposes them to the hatred that most people would feel for people who believe/do such things.


REBUTTAL --- Yes it does make sense and is a caricature. It caricatures Muhammed as the inspiration for bombings. Whether that bombing in his name is wrong according to the Qu'ran (I believe it is, while not having more than an interested layman's understanding thereof) is not the point - there are hundreds of examples of bombings done in the name of Islam. It is an exceptionally common motivation for those who plant bombs to claim. If they claim so erroneously according to your, my, or even the "official" interpretation of Muhammed's teachings is irrelevant as they definitely DO make this claim on a woefully regular basis.

I fully understand (and this is the part of "both sides" that I see) that these people are the minority by a long way amongst Muslims. This is true. Just like the minority of Democrats are pinko marxists and the minority of Republicans drooling neanderthal bigots, but editorial cartoons have appeared portraying these images.

I also certainly have sympathy that Muslims are the subject of antipathy in Europe. I however do not think the appearance or lack thereof of this cartoon will change that one whit. It is a product of economic competition, misplaced jingoistic patriotism and other sociological factors. I don't think for one second right-wing European thugs are driven by the idea that Muslims are terrorists, since this antipathy towards Muslims (and trust me growing up in the north of England I know this by repeated observation) predates their significant use of terrorism against Western targets.

Furthermore and in a general tone let's be clear what a real non-racist attitude should entail. It should entail the full acknowledgement that other races can be vicious evil thugs just as easily as whites can. It should entail the ability to criticize, in scholarly research, pop culture or editorial cartoons, negative aspects of people of ANY ethnicity or belief equally and fairly. Holding Muslims, or blacks, or ANY group sacrosanct from any criticism or humor is not racial equality, it is patronizing and condescending, saying that big magnanimous whitey will save you from that nasty free speech because you can't take it yourself. That to me is racism every bit as demeaning as any "raghead" joke. Equality means what it says - equal respect and equal freedom to be seen as a saint or a shitwad regardless of your race.

That is, or should be, the true liberal opinion - because liberalism after all means freedom.

[iverglas]

202. "caricature"

Per the Concise Oxford at my elbow (emphasis added):

a grotesque usu. comic representation of a person by exaggeration of characteristic traits, in a picture, writing, or mime

So your reiterating that a depiction of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban is a "caricature" isn't really accomplishing much. What "characteristic trait" of Mohammed is being exaggerated? The size of the bomb in his turban, maybe?

A false depiction is not a caricature. It is not caricature to depict, say, Jesus as an Inuit, or Shakespeare as an Olympic skier.

I don't think for one second right-wing European thugs are driven by the idea that Muslims are terrorists, since this antipathy towards Muslims (and trust me growing up in the north of England I know this by repeated observation) predates their significant use of terrorism against Western targets.

My point has always been that things like this legitimize the hatred. Screeds and ugly drawings on websites don't do that to any significant extent; they don't have the influence. Daily newspapers with the market penetration and stature of these ones do. And legitimizing hatred is hardly unlikely to produce concrete effects.

Furthermore and in a general tone let's be clear what a real non-racist attitude should entail. It should entail the full acknowledgement that other races can be vicious evil thugs just as easily as whites can.

Uh, no, and I know this will seem like nit-picking -- but races are not capable of anything. Individuals are, as individuals and sometimes as members of groups. But not races. And not individuals because of their racial or any other group characteristics.

It should entail the ability to criticize, in scholarly research, pop culture or editorial cartoons, negative aspects of people of ANY ethnicity or belief equally and fairly.

Yup -- of people qua people, not of people based on their ethnicity or religion or whatever else.

Holding Muslims, or blacks, or ANY group sacrosanct from any criticism or humor is not racial equality, it is patronizing and condescending, saying that big magnanimous whitey will save you from that nasty free speech because you can't take it yourself.

Yes, well, and I'm sure you understand that I haven't proposed anything of the sort.

That is, or should be, the true liberal opinion - because liberalism after all means freedom.

Yes, but I'm not a liberal, so I don't really care what liberal opinion should be. I hold freedom and equality in equally high regard, and not infrequently hold liberals in very low regard. And I consider human security, freedom from physical and psychological abuse, to be kinda important too.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/powers_of_persuasion/four_freedoms/four_freedoms.html

We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way-- everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want ... everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear ... anywhere in the world.
--President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Message to Congress, January 6, 1941

[dmallind]

204. Some points here

Yes indeed - "people of other races can be......" would have been more precise. You did get the correct point I think however. Glad you agree that people of any race can be vile and hopefully agree that they should be called vile if they are, regardless of their race. Certainly I agree that they are not vile BECAUSE of their race (race itself is technically a misconception here of course more often than not, but it is useful and accepted shorthand). I sincerely fear the PC slant that says truth cannot be told about vileness because it has a black face or a female set of chromosomes, or an innate attraction to its own gender, or any other "minority" status, lest others of that minority feel offended. That's as stupid and dangerous as assuming the vileness is ipso fact connected to those minority attributes.

The caricature is still valid because it grotesquely (and in several meanings of the words) exaggerates a trait assigned to the subject. You cannot possibly try to argue that some Muslims do not see Muhammed as an inspiration to plant bombs. They certainly do, by their own admission. Thus a trait of Muhammed, assigned to him by others, is this inspiration, and can be caricatured. Caricatures do not have to be of real attriburtes, and certainly don't have to be of attributes which the subject or those who revere the subject agree with, but are frequently attributes assigned by others. Look at ANY editorial cartoon and you'll see attributes used in caricatures that are either flat out not true or are negatively slanted attributes that can be argued validly on both sides.

To be honest the bomb in the turban falls into the latter. Muhammed was by no means a peaceful fellow. Valley of Badr? Battle of the Trench? Certainly the positive interpretation is that his forces were attacked first, but the man led an armed body and did not shrink from using arms. I leave it up to Muslim scholars and historians to dispute whether he was in the right or not - but he definitely fought. Would he have used bombs had they been available? I see little reason to doubt it.

BTW by DU standards I am not a liberal either, although I certainly believe in classical liberal ideas of freedom of speech and expression. Most Republicans would consider me liberal, with the real wingnuts considering me a pink commie subversive traitor. Most Democrats would call me moderate. Extreme left Democrats and fringe party adherents would (and have) call me anything from corporatist to imperialist fascist. I don't worry too much about labels.

[smirkymonkey]

140. Excellent post, regardless of what anybody else says.

Why can't some people understand that to some of us, religious beliefs are worthy of no more respect than the beliefs of any other group or club who thinks the same way.

At best we think it's silly, at worst we think it's dangerous. Either way, many people here who think religion is somehow beyond criticism, believe that we should all see religion as occupying some special place in the scheme of things. It doesn't.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truthInCO]

192. You are dead right.

Fiction is fiction.

[madmark]

107. when people suicide bomb in the name of islam what cartoons

do people expect they are going to get.

[iverglas]

123. ah, I see it's "they" again

when people suicide bomb in the name of islam what cartoons
do people expect they are going to get.

I think I'm going to puke.

[madmark]

124. i take it you didn't like the mohamed turban bomb cartoon

[iverglas]

128. you might take it

that I don't like people who lump all members of any group into any alleged category by labelling them "they".

"They" (sometimes written "those people") is one of the most insidious tools available for inspiring and expressing hatred.

[madmark]

132. "they" is a pronoun and its part of the language; and "they" are going

to use it. On to the cartoon, I found it a clever way to illustrate a particular religion's problem: Islam has been hijacked by a violent subsect as the religion of the suicide bomb. Part of the negative reaction to the cartoon I chalk up to the fact that the truth hurts sometimes.

[hedgehog]

136. I agree

The reaction to the cartoon is the proof in the pudding as far as I am concerned. A cartoon warrants a nasty letter to the editor, not threats of violence.

[iverglas]

137. and there we have it full circle

The reaction to the cartoon is the proof in the pudding as far as I am concerned.

The reaction of A MINORITY of members of a group is "proof" that what was said about ALL members of the group was true.

Do you people really not know what this is called?

I mean, apart from "begging the question" ...

[hedgehog]

143. I figured the cartoon was aimed at the minority and the

minority reacted.

[napsi]

163. Go ahead....

Call it racism.....I dare you. This isn't about racism...it's about not taking crap from any religous group. If you are not part of the fundie islamic/muslim whack job jerkoffs (and I'm not lumping all muslim/islamic groups together) ...then you shouldn't have a problem with it.....I'm so fucking tired of people with thin skins.......We wonder why we get our ass kicked in elections......Some of us have no GONADS (Balls)

[Bridget Burke]

198. Those who boast of their balls...

Are just pointing out how vulnerable they are to a well-placed kick.

[Hatalles]

139. What is the "truth" these cartoons convey?

Do they demonstrate the notion that "Islam has been hijacked by a violent subsect as the religion of the suicide bomb?" IMHO, by deliberately using the figure of Muhammad (the actual use of the figure itself set aside), the cartoonists paint *all* Muslims in this negative fashion. These cartoons are unable to differentiate between *good* Muslims and *bad* Muslims.

[hedgehog]

141. Who said the cartoons paint "all" Moslems in a bad way?

I read this as aimed specifically at those who would enforce Islamic law violently

[Hatalles]

145. Muhammad is the prophet of Islam.

When you depict him, you're depicting all Muslims.

[napsi]

151. Give me a break........

When you depict Christ in a jar of urine are you offending all christians? No..... When you depict all Jews in brim hats and beards are you offending all jews? No..... I'm sick and tired of walking on egg shells around these people. Fundies of any kind are open to bashing and ridicule in my opinion. This PC shit has got to go..... Flame away.....

[balzac]

165. I flamed away and I had my threads clipped!

http://balzac.wordpress.com/2006/02/02/blasphemy-is-a-sin-at-democraticundergroundcom

[iverglas]

183. "these people"

Thar she blows again.

[iverglas]

147. fuckin duh

Who said the cartoons paint "all" Moslems in a bad way?

When someone portrays the individual whom ALL Muslims revere as participating in the commission of atrocities, who exactly is being painted, and what colour?

I read this as aimed specifically at those who would enforce Islamic law violently

Hey, you can read The Cat in the Hat as being about a dog, if you like. Or claim to.

How YOU (claim to) read something has precisely sweet bugger all with either how it was intended to be read or how anyone else reads it.

Ethnocentricity or monomania? It can be hard to tell, sometimes.

I find it completely unbelievable that you or anyone else would claim not to read a portrayal of an individual whom a group of people reveres as committing atrocities as a statement that the group of people in question -- all of them -- at least condone atrocities. How in the bleeding hell else can anyone possibly regard people who revere an individual who commits atrocities?

How in the bleeding hell else can anyone interpret a false representation of a revered individual as committing atrocities as anything other than a false representation of ALL of the people who revere him?

How do you regard someone who voted for Bush? Bush is responsible for the atrocities. Do you not regard someone who supports Bush as condoning atrocities?

How else could someone who reveres a person who commits atrocities be regarded than as someone who condones the commission of atrocities?

Why can even someone who advocates that freedom of speech should trump everything else in the world not acknowledge that hate speech exists, and acknowledge that s/he sees it when it happens?

If someone wants to say that there should be no consequences for engaging in hate speech, it's easy enough to say. Claiming not to see it doesn't quite strike me as having the courage of one's convictions.

[dmallind]

205. Wait a minute - NO!

Iverglas states...How in the bleeding hell else can anyone interpret a false representation of a revered individual as committing atrocities as anything other than a false representation of ALL of the people who revere him?

How do you regard someone who voted for Bush? Bush is responsible for the atrocities. Do you not regard someone who supports Bush as condoning atrocities?

How else could someone who reveres a person who commits atrocities be regarded than as someone who condones the commission of atrocities?

Why can even someone who advocates that freedom of speech should trump everything else in the world not acknowledge that hate speech exists, and acknowledge that s/he sees it when it happens?

If someone wants to say that there should be no consequences for engaging in hate speech, it's easy enough to say. Claiming not to see it doesn't quite strike me as having the courage of one's convictions.


I say hell no - Bush and his cabale are responsible for the atrocities. Not everyone who voted for him necessarily condones them - not at all. I absolutely reject the idea that a caricature of a leader caricatures all followers. I know plenty of Republicans who either did not support the war from the get go or certainly do not now. Many of them won't vote for his successor, some will because they are single or limited issue voters such as gun enthusiasts, pro-lifers, wealthy tax avoiders and so on who see Republicans as their only choice.

I know only a handful of Muslims to any personal degree (unlike where I grew up, there are very few of them in this area - and no "them" is not racist :-) ). One in particular gets apoplectic at the people who abuse his religion by making it associated with terrorism and bombing - but make no mistake it is the bombers who piss him off, not people who criticize Isalm for it - he just says they arwe wrong (which is true). I haven't asked him about this issue because I never like to ask people to speak as if they were a spokesman for their whole nation or religion or race - it's patronizing. I bring him up as anecdotal, single example. I am sure however that while he would probably not like the cartoon, any anger he had would be directed at the people who made that association recognizable and a subject anyone would think of drawing, not the people who drew it. In his place I would be the same and can say so with some validity, as I personally escorted away from our parade booth a local atheist who was abusing religious people. I did not want him besmirching the organization or atheists in general. When people complained about him and said it proved to them atheists were hateful I in no way blamed them - he DID make that impression, just like Muslim bombers make the impression that made that drawing possible or noteworthy. And please don't tell me atheists are at no risk in middle America.

[iverglas]

206. don't know quite what more to say

I'm hoping this thread, and its successor, will be locked, actually. The bigoted filth being spewed around is making me nauseous. That comment is about the threads, not your posts.

Liberals do tend to have that effect on me, though, "classical liberals" the most. When I say I'm not a liberal, it's because I'm as left as circumstances permit, which means a social democrat in present-day Canada. Liberals (which doesn't necessarily mean everyone who adopts the idiosyncratic USAmerican use of the term for him/herself), and in particular "classical liberals", are just one variety of right-winger to me.

(There's a joke in there -- Michael J Fox has told the story of a contest held by Canada's national newsmagazine to find a counterpart to "as American as apple pie". The winner: "as Canadian as possible in the circumstances".)

I say hell no - Bush and his cabale are responsible for the atrocities. Not everyone who voted for him necessarily condones them - not at all.

Well, I guess I'm just not with you there. Unless they voted for him as a vote against a greater evil (something we accept as a fact of life up here in a multi-party system), or unless they're exceptionally dim, their vote for Bush was a vote for what he does. I really don't let people off hooks quite as easily as you might. Their purported reasons for voting for him (none of the ones you cite being any more laudable than his international belligerence, in any event) really don't matter to me.

I absolutely reject the idea that a caricature of a leader caricatures all followers.

Well, I'm still not agreeing that this was a caricature. And we're not talking about a leader, we're talking about a revered person. And I do think that portraying a group of people as revering a mass murderer -- by portraying the person they revere as a mass murderer -- is, shall we say, distasteful. And false, of course (his historical doings, whatever they might have been, not being in any way what the mass murders being attributed to him today are all about).

I've known scores of Muslims; undoubtedly more than anyone else here who hasn't actually lived in a Muslim society. I've known them intimately (well, only one that intimately). Somali Muslims, Iranian Muslims, Iraqi Muslims, Guyanese Muslims, Trinidadian Muslims, Pakistani Muslims, Indian Muslims ... . And none of the vicious slurs aimed at "them" and "those people" in this forum apply in the slightest way to even one of them. They are Muslims because their parents were Muslims and their grandparents were Muslims and the societies where they grew up were Muslim. They would no more throw a bomb -- unless it were at Saddam Hussein or Ruhollah Khomeini -- than any Christian or Hindu or Buddhist or Jew or Zoroastrian I've known, and yup, I've known a Zoroastrian.

One of my favourites, of course, was the ex-Muslim Iranian radical who went out for lunch with me and one of our mutual Iraqi Muslim friends and made our friend pay for his ham sandwich. As an outsider to the fray, I had better manners, and ate chicken. I'm a tetchy atheist for lo these almost 40 years now, btw. I still have manners.

And THEY are the people whose revered religious prophet is being called a mass murderer. And I think it stinks, and I think that picking on people like them, who are already vulnerable in western societies, is nasty bullying of the lowest order.

Big brave freedom-of-the-press champions of the western media. Yeah. Not. Plain simple bullies, at the bottom line.

As to your comment in your other post:

I sincerely fear the PC slant that says truth cannot be told about vileness because it has a black face or a female set of chromosomes, or an innate attraction to its own gender, or any other "minority" status, lest others of that minority feel offended.

-- well, that there would be a caricature. The only PC slant of that nature that I see is in the right-wing portrayal of "PC", which is a caricature of the genuinely progressive position that no one should be criticized/ridiculed because of his/her inherent characteristics / group identity. You'd probably be pleased to hear that I objected loudly and at length to claims that no abuses were being committed by any of the populations in the Katrina disaster zone during the period of abandonment, which seemed to me to be precisely what you decry and flatly contrary to the interests of people who are vulnerable to such abuses in such situations. (So yes, I suppose such "PC" does occasionally arise, but it's still kinda strawish in its non-representativeness ... kinda like your atheist acquaintance ... and Muslim terror bombers ...)

But then I wasn't saying "black people are murderous savages" (the problem being, of course, that quite a number of people in the US were saying just that); I was saying that all populations have deviant members, and pretending otherwise about any population puts their victims and potential victims at risk.

Some of the editorial cartoons here are just plainly in the "black people are murderous savages" category. Not composed out of concern for any victims, not published in order to advance understanding or for any other good purpose; just as many of the things said about what was happening in the disaster zone were not being said in order to stimulate aid to the victims.

And the whole thing about freedom of speech is that we all got it. No one's criticism of what is said by anyone else is in any way answered, let alone defeated, by a cry of "free speech!" Everyone's free to speak, and anyone else who chooses to is free to call their speech as they see it, and call the speaker what they perceive him/her/it to be, and call on the speaker to refrain from scummy speech. Just because one has a tongue doesn't mean it has to wag constantly or that everything it emits is worthy of respect or defence, and the same goes for cartoonists' pens.

[dmallind]

220. But criticism and even offense are not the issue

Heck I agree people should be able to criticize and decry the cartoonists if they so feel - be that on the grounds of the perceived insults, religious intolerance or even just taht they aren't very good cartoons.

Never implied and never would imnply that it's not OK to call the cartoonists talentless hatemongering vicious bigoits. I don't agree that they ARE (except perhaps talentless - none of them was that good IMO) but I agree with your right or Muslims' rights to so call them.

But free speech is just that - speech. You can't call rioting, arson and destruction of property "speech". I just stand agog at the irony of protesting the depicition of Islam as violent by being violent against the general nationality of those who protrayed it in this manner - not even just the people who did it (not that that would be an ethically correct response either but at least it would have some comprehensibility). I am sure your pal is more restrained. I am sure the vast majority of Muslims are. However you'd think some reflection on why this stereotype became a subject for caricature would be in order. Who'
s really doing more damage to the reputatoion of Islam - the cartoonists who, if you are 100% right, are viciously and intentionally insulting all Muslims as violent firebombers, or the Muslims who react to this by violent firebombing?

I sure as hell know which one is covered by any sensible idea of free speech.

Oh and if you think my idea of PC is a caricature you haven't read DU threads that closely. It's very prevalent on here. Recently the furor over calling a female child-killer a "monster" springs to mind.

In fact the only people who can be safely attacked as a group on DU without the PC police chiming in are the obese. And Republicans of course. But hey they deserve it :-)

[iverglas]

233. who said they were?

But criticism and even offense are not the issue

I have NEVER suggested that "offence" is the issue, and I have DENIED that it is the issue.

The issue is that CERTAIN GROUPS have been singled out to be given offence. This is discriminatory by definition, and in its intended effect is pretty obvious.

Again, what people here can't figure out just eludes me. As has been pointed out (not just by me), the racist/fascist right wing loves to shelter under "free speech" to do things that are indecent at the least, and intolerable in a liberal democracy in many cases.

The racist/fascist right wing in Europe has made Muslim immigrants the scapegoats on which it hopes to rise to power. IS THIS NOT A FAMILIAR PHENOMENON?

The targeting of Muslims for "satire" at the least feeds the hatred present in the population, and arguably is intended to feed that hatred. Since the effect can hardly be otherwise, it is difficult to argue that the foreseeable effect is less than intentional.

If the wearing of a Nazi costume by a silly boy at a Hallowe'en party can be pointed to as the inspiration for anti-Jewish attacks in England (as has been done in this forum and elsewhere), how could the publication of hateful characterizations of Muslims in the mainstream press be expected to have no effect?

OH LOOK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1703501,00.html

Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons

Gwladys Fouché and agencies
Monday February 6, 2006

Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.

The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

... Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

The illustrator told the Norwegian daily Dagbladet, which saw the email: "I see the cartoons as an innocent joke, of the type that my Christian grandfather would enjoy."

... The decision smacks of "double-standards", said Ahmed Akkari, spokesman for the Danish-based European Committee for Prophet Honouring, the umbrella group that represents 27 Muslim organisations that are campaigning for a full apology from Jyllands-Posten.

A double standard that allows people of one group to be offended, and to be misrepresented and ridiculed and made into objects of hatred, but not people of another group, commonly goes by names like bigotry and racism.

You can't call rioting, arson and destruction of property "speech".

Since I HAVEN'T DONE THAT, I don't feel in need of the lecture.

The effects of the editorial commentary in question can be expected to be felt by thousands and thousands of people who have NOT rioted, set fire or destroyed property -- women and children, for starters. That effect would have been felt REGARDLESS of whether anyone had rioted, set fires or destroyed property. One does not have to condone either in order to condemn the other.

I don't have to condone violence in order to condemn hate speech -- and no one has to condone hate speech in order to condemn violence.

Anyone confused about these issues would do well to do a little reading here:
http://www.mpacuk.org/
The Muslim Public Affairs Committee in the UK, whose spokesperson I saw interviewed on CBC Newsworld yesterday.

http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4/1351/103/

A Total Disgrace - MPACUK Condemns Friday's March!

There is a link to video: "BBC News : Watch MPACUK slam Muslim thugs protesting in London".

In fact the only people who can be safely attacked as a group on DU without the PC police chiming in are the obese.

Nonsense. If anyone here suggested that Black USAmericans weren't ready for the responsibility of voting (as it has been said that "some people" aren't ready not to live without oppression), or said that Hispanic USAmericans needed to learn to live with democratic freedoms (as has been said about Muslims), or repeatedly referred to Jews as "those people" and made disparaging remarks about them as a group ("perpetual victims", say), you know exactly what would happen.


Oh and if you think my idea of PC is a caricature you haven't read DU threads that closely. It's very prevalent on here. Recently the furor over calling a female child-killer a "monster" springs to mind.

I hunted up the thread in question, I find your characterization of the furor less than accurate, and I agree with everyone who objects to the public vilification of people about whom the vilifiers know precisely bugger all.

[dmallind]

197. How the heck can "they" be racist?

There is not a single damn English speaking person on earth who does not use "they" dozens of times every day without the slightest bias. It's a third person plural pronoun. The only way to avoid it would be to use the full list of names for every group of people you're referring to.

When you refer to a group of people what do YOU call them iverglas?

If I talk about university professors as "they" am I biased against them? People over 6' tall? My neighbors? All are groups of two or more people and groups to which I do not belong. They are "they" every bit as much as Muslims are "they" to me, because and only because I am not a Muslim.

I would have a bit of sympathy with this argument if they (other posters against whom I am in no way biased) were using phrases like "that sort of person" which can, ONLY in SOME contexts by no means all, be indiciations of racism, but applying the word "they" to Muslims just means the writer is not a Muslim and is aware there are multiple Muslims.

The only way "they" could be racist is if it is used to explicitly ascribe negative aspects to a whole race, but even then it is the descriptors that make the phrase racist, not the pronoun.

Exhibit a) I hate whites. They are evil and criminal

Exhibit b) Whites make up approximately 80% of the British population. They are the largest ethnic group in the nation.

Exhibit a) is a racist statement which contains "they". It is not MADE racist by "they". Exhibit b) is a comment about race containing "they" which in no way conatins bias either positive or negative.

[hedgehog]

133. Could I refer people on this thread to an earlier thread today?

Where we were discussing the new Turkish film, Valley of the Wolves Iraq"?

The plot apparently involves American soldiers routinely massacring innocent civilians and enjoying it while a Jewish-American doctor harvests organs from healthy Iraqi prisoners. Regardless of how you feel about the Muhammad cartoons, I think it's clear that racism and wild caricatures are not just a Western pastime to say the least.

[Hatalles]

135. I don't think anyone disagrees with you there.

Racism and intolerance is prevalent everywhere.

[Orangeone]

142. Free Speech?

Europe is a place where you can go to jail if you say that the Holocaust didn't happen.

[Hatalles]

146. I prefer this cartoon.

[hedgehog]

148. OK, but has anyone threatened the author of that cartoon?

[Hatalles]

150. Why would they?

[hedgehog]

152. Sorry , I mistyped

I was reading some on this thread to somehow be justifying the violent reaction to the original cartoon because it(in their opinion) denigrates all Moslems.I don't think you were one of those people.

[iverglas]

184. I don't think

I was reading some on this thread to somehow be justifying the violent reaction to the original cartoon because it(in their opinion) denigrates all Moslems.I don't think you were one of those people.

... that anyone was one of "those people". But if you'd like to name one, I'd be curious.

[fakeshemp]

172. The cartoon makes an interesting point about double standards

But not the one it intends, in that some radical Muslim groups were happy to use banners along the lines of the top right cartoon during anti-war marches in the UK prior to the Iraq war (one of the reasons why I felt I could not participate, even though I was stridently opposed to the war), and similar images are commonplace in countries such as Syria which are now so outraged at the Danish government for not restricting freedom of expression.

But of course the difference between the top two cartoons and those in the lower panel is obvious; Blacks and Jews are ethnic groups, Islam is a religion i.e. a body of ideology. Though Judaism is also a religion, Hitler did not primarily persecute Jews because of their religious beliefs, but because of their ethnicity- I myself am a non-religious Jew, but would hardly have escaped the death camps on that basis.

A more honest depiction of events would show the Piss Christ next to the Mohammed cartoons, with "This is Freedom of Expression" next to both.

[Bridget Burke]

200. When did Piss Christ appear on the front page of your paper?

Yes, Islam is a world religion. Here in Texas, I know black & white "Native" Muslims, as well as immigrants from Pakistan, Iran & Lebanon.

Muslims in Europe are usually a separate "ethnic" group & subject to racist attack.

[fakeshemp]

219. None of the three images in that cartoon have appeared in my paper

as far as I know- but that's hardly the point. The two cartoons in the upper panels of that Jordanian cartoon are simply not analogous to the Danish cartoons of Mohammed- whereas the Piss christ, to an extent, would be.

And no, Muslims in Europe are not a seperate "ethnic" group. There is no ethnic basis to Islam. Muslims in Europe are members of a religion - followers of an ideology - drawn from many different ethnic groups. As I've stated elsewhere, the majority of the Muslims in my hometown here in Britain are white Europeans, as we have large Albanian and Bosnian communities. It is true that the majority of (although far from all) Muslims in Europe are of immigrant descent, and should be protected from abuse on the basis of their ethnicity, as should everyone be. But the ideologies they follow should be as much fair game for criticism or ridicule as any other ideology followed by any other citizen. And yes, in Britain at least Christianity is open to ridicule, in spite of the ludicrous and archaic, but thankfully rarely used blasphemy laws which disgracefully remain on the books - any fundie groups that have a problem with this, such as Christian Voice, generally recieve nothing besides contempt, and rightly so.

[Englander]

175. That's it, that makes the point.

Thanks for posting that, that sums it up for me.

[entanglement]

209. Beautiful, can I put that in my signature line?

n/t

[iverglas]

149. free speech ZONES

Now there's something the rest of the world's liberal democracies haven't come up with yet.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11418res20030923.html

WASHINGTON - I am here today because my First Amendment rights and those of many others in this country have been denied. Last year my sister and I were arrested and detained at a rally in western Pennsylvania simply because I carried a sign critical of President Bush.

... I've run into these so-called free speech zones several times in the last few years. The first time was in July of 2001, when Vice President Cheney delivered a major energy policy speech at the Community College of Allegheny County. I arrived with my sign only to discover that protesters were being herded into a remote "free speech zone" located some distance from where Cheney and his press entourage would enter. I could see pro-Bush and pro-Cheney signs visible beyond the line of police.

... Within a short time, two uniformed Allegheny police officers approached me and demanded that I enter the "designated free speech zone." I quietly refused, stating that a designated free-speech zone is a contradiction in terms and that the whole country is a free speech zone. The officer asked my age and when I replied 65, he moaned. He asked me about eight times to go behind the fence and said if I didn't, he would have to arrest me. Finally he handcuffed me and led me away toward the fire hall.

Yikes - offending the sensibilities of the elected head of government. Not an arrestable offence where I live ... or in Denmark or France, methinks.

So ... I wonder ... who's on the inside of that chain-link fence looking out ... or should that be in the glass house, throwing stones ...

[Jdubb32]

153. Muslim countries have imposed sanctions against Denmark,

because of a cartoon. It's their loss denmark makes good butter

[balzac]

166. Even D.U. Doesn't want anything to do with this

http://balzac.wordpress.com/2006/02/02/blasphemy-is-a-sin-at-democraticundergroundcom

I'm saying show solidarity for the right of free speech!

[barb162]

168. and good furniture, china, flatware, etc

[fakeshemp]

178. There was an enraged Muslim radical on the BBC last night

Complaining that these cartoons should have been banned because they "demonised" Islam. I have to wonder, what will have done the most to generate increased hostility towards Islam in the west?

a) A bunch of cartoons.

or

b) Mobs of fanatics storming an embassy armed with machine guns, Islamic organisations demanding free speech be abrogated to protect their sensibilites, and brutally repressive countries who treat minority groups appallingly withdrawing their ambassadors from Denmark and launching boycotts...all over a bunch of cartoons.


Right-wing extremist fundamentalists of any religion are a threat to freedom. I don't know why some see Muslim fundamentalists as worthy of the kind of free pass they'd NEVER give to Christian fundamentalists. It's truly depressing to see some "liberals" in the British media who a few months ago were rightly condemning Christian extremists for trying to get Jerry Springer; the opera pulled for depicting Jesus as a nappy-wearing bisexual now decrying these cartoons for offending Muslims' religious ideological beliefs. I guess the apologists for fundamentalism are right- there is a double standard at work.

[Julius Civitatus]

186. Right on

They are enraged claiming the cartoons stereotype Muslims as violent terrorists... and they protests by making death threats, storming embassies with weapons.

Right...

:eyes:

[Guitarman]

185. South Park

I will be disappointed if the South Park team does not take this and run with it. I would love to see them rake Mohammad through the coals just like they have done with every other sacred cow on the planet.

[Julius Civitatus]

187. South Park already did Mohamed in one episode

There was an episode where all the deities got together in a fight, kind of like a "super hero league." It included Buddha, Mohamed, Krishna and Jesus.

I guess they should be demanding the entire USA apologizes, and the entire Middle East should boycotting American products until the US government apologizes for such an affront to their traditions.

:eyes:

[madmark]

208. they already depicted mohamed as a member of the "superfriends"

(superfriends consisted of "jesus, vishnu, mohamed, i think moses, and i cant remember the fifth deity/revered figure), the superfriends came together to stop David Blaine and an animated Lincoln Monument from taking over the world. The superfriends all had special powers. I dont remember what mohamed's special power was. Maybe south park will revisit the character have his special power to be to blow himself taking out as many nearby as possible.

[truthInCO]

189. I want my own personal fatwa

Check out these photoshoppings. Now here's getting creative.

Before anyone goes off on some tirade of righteous indignation, remember that NO RELIGION is safe from criticism, parody, or even outright ridicule.

If you find yourself being offended, pretend that the images are of GWB, and find your calm peaceful center again.

http://retecool.com/comments.php?id=13539_0_1_0_C

[DemExpat]

191. I saw these linked from a Dutch news site today....

DemEx

[TankLV]

214. Where can I see this damned cartoon - I want to see what all the fuss is

about!

[Tight_rope]

218. Me too...Damn sensitive people!

[NuttyFluffers]

223. hmm, seems like RW groups from all sides are getting what they want

quelle surprise. :eyes:

anyone wanna take odds that this was a psy ops project?

[demo dutch]

234. Once again it happening in the name of religion!