I'm torn about the Muhammed cartoon controversy, how about you?

[BurtWorm]

...Many European commentators concede that the cartoons were provocative, even insensitive, but argue that the conservative Muslim world must learn to accept Western standards of free speech and pluralism.

Many Muslims complain that the cartoons reinforce a dangerous confusion between Islam and the Islamist terrorism that the vast majority of Muslims abhor. Dalil Boubakeur, head of France's Muslim Council, called the cartoons a new sign of Europe's growing "Islamophobia."

The conflict is just the latest manifestation of growing tension between Europe and the Muslim world as the Continent struggles to absorb a fast-expanding Muslim population whose customs and values are often at odds with Europe's secular, liberal societies. The tension has been exacerbated by racial and religious discrimination against Muslim immigrants and their children in Europe's weakest economies....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/international/europe/02cnd-cartoon.html?hp&ex=1138942800&en=d585e98f353a8976&ei=5094&partner=homepage


On the one hand, I can see the point about "Islamophobia," which very often crosses over into Arabophobia, which is a form of racism. In the US, certainly, and probably elsewhere in the West, "humorists" (especially on the right, but not exclusively) can't always be trusted to know where to draw that line.

On the other hand, why should any one religion or idea be off limits to criticism or even mockery? If I don't believe Muhammed's image is sacred, why should I be forced to observe the stricture of a belief system I don't believe in? Why participate in superstition if you're not superstitious? Why should anyone expect someone outside the belief system to not just *respect* but to *observe* their belief system? Isn't that what certain Muslims are expecting of non-Muslims? Aren't there Muslims who can tolerate non-Muslims having non-Muslim attitudes about Muhammed? Shouldn't there be?

[catnhatnh]

1. Let see...

Someone in Qatar prints a cartoon that "denigrates" Jesus and I suggest first economic sanctions and others suggest Jihad....Yep that's it, my God is JUST and MERCIFUL and therefore I must kill people who did not DRAW THE CARTOON....

[endarkenment]

2. It is free speech and it is political free speech.

The muslim world will just have to deal with it, just as we have to live with their nonsense. I say mock everyone. You're an idiot and I'm an idiot too. What could be more idiotic than adults pretending to believe in the tooth fairy or its equivalent?

If the cartoon is offensive don't buy the paper.

[Just Me]

101. It's discriminatory, bigotted, hate speech. There ARE limits,...

,...as there should be, on speech which is intended to discriminate against an entire people.

What could be more idiotic than adults justifying doing hateful shit because other adults do it? :shrug:

[Marie26]

108. Maybe

I'm not sure if this cartoon was really hate speech. The cartoon was a drawing of Mohammed, w/his robe forming a bomb. The cartoonist was probably making a point about the explosiveness of the Muslim world right now. And the uproar almost proved the point. The protests didn't seem to be because the cartoon is considered "hate speech," and more because any unfavorable depiction of Muhammad is considered blasphemous.

[AbbyR]

130. How can a cartoon discriminate? nft

[Der Blaue Engel]

3. If the objection were on grounds of anti-Muslim/Arab sentiment

that would be one thing. But they're using words such as "blasphemous," and "no one can say a bad word about our prophet."

There were plenty of anti-Semitic cartoons leading up to WWII as well, so it is a bit disturbing to see that trend being repeated with a different scapegoat, but the grounds for objection are misplaced.

[smirkymonkey]

39. There are STILL plenty of Anti-Semitic Cartoons in the Arab Press

I find their hypocrisy astounding.

[Leopolds Ghost]

56. waah! waah! They do it too! Don't forget - Anti-Semitism is Anti-Semitism.

Both Jews, Arabs and various other peoples are considered Semites.
Plenty of folks in the Jewish community, especially in Israel are more closely related to Palestinians than to any other people on the face of the Earth, and one could make the claim that Palestinian bloodlines (predating Moses -- that area has a long history) are the only ones diaspora Jews have in common, in addition to language, culture and religion (all of which are intricately related to Arab/Islamic culture and religion, which can best be described as an offshoot of Judaism popularized amongst the non-Hebrew community after Christianity prepared folks in the area for the idea of embracing a missionary, pseudo-Jewish, monotheistic religion.)

In other words, Jews and Muslims are closely related. An attack on one is one step closer to an attack on the other. This is most clearly seen in the motives of the right-wing religious fundamentalist churches (i.e. theo-fascists) in the US. It's interesting that the compilers of the cartoon hit-piece make comments on their website about "secular liberals" in Europe. Only a few of the cartoons are anything more than racist depictions recycled from the "bomb throwing anarchist Jews/Slavs" of the 1880s-1930s.

The furor in the Muslim community would be much less if it were merely blasphemous, although you can be assured that plenty of fundies would be upset either way, just like some Southern Baptists in the US are upset about dancing and drinking.

[smirkymonkey]

81. See my response below on Anti-Semitism.

Otherwise, your post is a red herring, designed to distract from the topic of Arab racism and intolerance. You can't properly defend them on this, so you resort to the typical argument of so many Islamofascist apologists on this board.

[barb162]

61. double standards, intolerance, hypocrisy

[Clark2008]

74. Arabs can't be anti-Semitic.

They are, literally, Semitic.

Geesch. Learn some heritage, will ya? I hate when language is used to bastardize heritage.

1. Of or relating to the Semites or their languages or cultures.
2. Of, relating to, or constituting a subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic language group that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, and Aramaic.

[smirkymonkey]

80. Nice way to distract from the subject at hand, but you need to

learn some proper definitions, will ya? :eyes:

From Wikipedia:

"The term anti-Semitism has historically referred to prejudice towards Jews alone, and this was the only use of this word for more than a century. It does not traditionally refer to prejudice toward other people who speak Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs or Syriacs). Bernard Lewis, Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University, says that "Anti-Semitism has never anywhere been concerned with anyone but Jews."

"In recent decades some groups have argued that the term should be extended to include prejudice against Arabs, Anti-Arabism, in the context of accusations of Arab anti-Semitism; further, some, including the Islamic Association of Palestine, have argued that this implies that Arabs can not, by definition, be anti-Semitic, despite the acknowledged high level of Arab anti-Semitism. The argument for such extension comes out of the claim that since the Semitic language family includes Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic languages, and the historical term "Semite" refers to all those who consider themselves descendants of the Biblical Shem, anti-Semitism should be likewise inclusive. This usage is not generally accepted."

[Clark2008]

92. Hmmm... my ex husband, a Palestinian, considers

himself Semitic no matter WHAT Wikipedia has to say about this. (BTW, anyone can add anything to Wikipedia).

Maybe you should actually TALK to an Arab instead of just pretending to know about them. Eh?

P.S. For shits and giggles, I'd like to mention that my CURRENT husband is Jewish. I believe I have a tiny bit more on the ball about this issue than many on this board. Thank you.

If your point is that "they do it, too," well, that's just not good enough. I don't support racism in any fashion and I don't care WHO the drawer is.

[Reynardine]

138. Origin of term Anti-Semitism

The term "Anti-Semitic" came about as the result of a German anti-Jewish group, called the Antisemiten-Liga (League of Anti-Semites) that were founded around 1880.

Thus, while the ethnic term "Semite" refers to Jews and Arabs, the political term, "Anti-Semitic," originated as specifically anti-Jewish.

[rinsd]

105. Okay, call them Jew Haters then....

That way there is no confusion over semantics.

[Dorian Gray]

103. Good point...

Very good point, smirkymonkey.

[cali]

4. Me too.

I'm also conflicted about this for precisely the reasons you've laid out. The violence that's erupting in Palestine, Afghanistan and other countries due to this is really disturbing.

[chaz4jazz]

5. Remember the "hook-nosed" Jew cartoons of the '30s?

They were prevalant everywhere, expecially in the Third Reich. Jews portrayed with hook-noses, yamalkes, paes sideburns, bony, loong-nailed fingers, conniving sly eyes, salivating over Christian children and gold and money. These cartoons did their best to alter the publics consciousness. These kinds of racist stereotypes must stop.

On the other hand - Arab/Islamist schnools around the Middle East continue to depict Jews in these same Hitler-esque 'toons in text books. They can't take the heat when it is directed at them.

[BurtWorm]

21. I was thinking of those cartoons when I considered the one hand.

There's nothing defensible about racist cartoons except maybe that they're a form of speech, I suppose. But satire of an ideology? Now that is something almost worth dying for to protect.

[formernaderite]

93. well the cartoons are supposedly denigrating Mohammed

not Arabs. Give me a break....have you seen the cartoons? They're not racist...maybe they're anti-Islam....but not racist. My wifes sister is married to a Greek man who looks pretty much like those pics of Mohammed..bushy beard and all. Heck...they could be Castro, just replace the turbin.
Here's a fast loading link to the cartoons...they're mild and mostly funny:

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

[Tom Joad]

6. I think all the anger is not about the cartoon....

Remember the context of the times...
West supports brutal occupation of Palestine for decades. Homes demolished, crops destroyed, men, women, children killed by occupying army, supported by West.

West supports occupation of Iraq. Torture. bombings. Denmark was part of Bush's "coalition of the willing".

West supports the destruction of secular forces opposed to western imperialism. Religious extremism not attacked, used as way to create schism in people to counter-secular nationalistic resistance. Divide and conquer. It works. Too well. Extremist forces, formerly supported by West, gain much influence among those who sought to change the status quo.

This is not to justify anything else. Just to point out there are reasons these things happen. Look for the context, not just the cartoon strip.

[Matariki]

12. the anger IS about the cartoon

in Islam, it is forbidden to visually represent the prophet Mohammad.

Not that your points aren't valid apart from the cartoon.

[Benbow]

48. Yes - look at the context n/t

[rpannier]

51. ABC TV (Asia-Pacific) just did a report on the origin of this fight

It began when a Danidh publishing company put out a book on Mohammad. Every Islamic Scholar that read the book gave it high praise. They objected to the cover of the book having a picture of Mohammad's face on it. When the publishing company refused to change the cover and the Danish government refused to insist on having the cover changed the scholars got mad and denounced the book. The outrage has nothing to do with Iraq. It has to do with members of the Islamic-Talibanic community wanting their way on every issue.
They argue that there is a Sharia against having Mohammad's face shwn for fear of idolatry. Well, fine. They can have all the Sharia's they want, but they do not apply in the west. They get pissed off when we in the west criticize their laws, their treatment of women, the fact that some Arab countries will not allow any religions other than Islam to be practiced, but then they turn around and expect the west to abide by their Sharia's and respect their cultural laws and norms.
They're mad at France, who has ZERO troops in Iraq, because the cartoons were posted there. They're mad at France for having totally religious neutral schools. Somehow the French government is anti-Islam. This issue is not just about Denmark.
A Fundamentalist nutcase is a fundamentalist nutcase in any culture or religion. The Islamic fundies are mad because Denmark, Spain, Italy, Hungary, France etc did not roll over and play dead to their wishes.

[SupplySideLiberal]

114. good point on idolatry

Thank you for mentioning the Islamic proscription on images of Mohammed being for the purpose of discouraging idolatry. I didn't know that.

It seems like a good point in the religion, but how ironic is it that Muslims would riot over it? As if anyone would be led to idolize Mohammed from those cartoons.

[StrafingMoose]

7. Anybody has an actual scan of this cartoon ?

I can't offer any opinion since I haven't seen it myself, but I know the West has been playing provocateur on the Arab world for quite a while. Angry, violent, incoherent Arabs are playing it exactly in the US-UK axis' hand regarding Iraq, at least.

[Mr.Green93]

14. Look here

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

[StrafingMoose]

27. Thanks

[Jacobin]

36. thanks for posting that link

I've been trying to see what the fuss was all about

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

76. Great.

Now there's a fatwa against DU because you posted that here.

:hide:

[mdmc]

8. I remember after Iowa, a DU'er posted a

"don't you feel like we just avoided a train wreck" alluding to Dean's glorious fall. At that time, I wasn't feeling "it"; I didn't care about the poster's free speech.

There is a time and a place for everything. I can see the next political cartoon being a bombed bus, with a tattered editorial cartoon floating down from the explosion. (<-That ain't bad - I'm gonna go do the artwork right now!).

You have the right to do anything you want, you just need to accept the responsibility for your actions. These cartoons made the world less safe. The cartoonist will deal with it, the publishers will deal with it, the terrorist will deal with. The victims will deal with it.

It was not right or wrong. It was inflammatory.

[rambler1277]

82. bear in mind the recent Dutch problems with Muslims ...

Killing their artists, trying to take over the country etc. From what I gather, the Dutch are getting fed up with how the Muslims are acting and I'm sure this was a slap at them.

Islam is turning more and more into the religeous version of soccer: A Reason to Riot

[mdmc]

86. I didn't know that. Well, they should keep toonin' n. support BUSH!

That ought to show dem A-rabs who is in charge.

[formernaderite]

94. LOL..that's is so funny...I'm going to steal that line

"Islam is turning more and more into the religeous version of soccer: A Reason to Riot"...

[Matariki]

9. not at all, it's ridiculous

if a muslim isn't permitted to draw images of Mohammad, fine, but threatening non-muslims who do? come on, what's to feel torn about?

it's like christians threatening non-christians for 'having another god before Jehovah'

edited to remove inadvertent html

[Cats Against Frist]

10. They need to STFU

Just like Pat Robertson and the rest of the clerics. I don't like the idea of Islamic gunmen threatening the EU parliament. And what with the whole France thing. If radical Muslims overrun Europe, and the Christo-fascists keep getting seats on the Supreme Court, there aren't going to be too many places left to take the "Enlightenment Shuffle," and that's going to suck.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

11. Not at all

I acknowledge that it is a sensitive issue, and I think good manners should prevail more often, but if we give up the rights of free speech in order not to offend a minority, or even a majority for that matter, well then we have...given up free speech.

[WillyT]

13. Believe Me... It Ain't Just Muslims Who Offend Easily On Religion !!!

Many years back, while standing in a lift line at Squaw Valley Ski resort (and after just finishing a joint in the parking lot with some friends), I was admiring the crucifix of one of the women we were skiing with that day. It was a beautiful polished gold and silver thing, and it looked particularly cool as the marijuana started to take effect.

Being stoned, and not very aware that there were a bunch of people within listening distance, I commented on the cross, saying, "Ya know, that's the way they executed people back then. What if Jesus had been born in the last century? Would people be wearing little electric chairs or gas chambers around their necks???"

Now I thought I was keeping my voice low, but the bane of the bud, is that your senses and perceptions tend to be a bit off. And although the 8 of us got on a giggling jag at my observation, I noticed a few spines stiffening, and a few fists balling up in the lift line.

We decided to change the subject, cause it really was a great day for skiing, and it would have been a shame to end up in jail or the hospital.

And PLEASE don't ask me to tell you the joke about how Jesus bites his nails...

:hippie::smoke::evilgrin::smoke::hippie:

:hi:

[megatherium]

32. I remember the furor over "Life of Brian," the old Monty Python movie.

One of the best movies about religion ever made, genuinely intelligent and thought-provoking amidst the humor. Of course, many Christians were outraged. Yet at the same time, no one was threatening violence, no riots broke out.

And no Christian countries have laws requiring you to be Christian (Saudi Arabia prohibits Christian worship even in private homes). No Christian countries punish "blasphemy" with death (which Pakistan does).

[rambler1277]

84. I'm sorry, was that supposed to be funny?

Not everyone here is an atheist.

[Coexist]

119. No - but we all allowed freedom of speech

Lighten up, Frances.

[enigma000]

126. But you didn't riot did you?

Maybe you sent a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. Maybe you complained. I doubt you rioted.

Yet, you aren't an atheist - so why didn't you riot? I mean all religions are the same, right?

[AbbyR]

129. Actually, I was talking to a couple of LDS missionaries once

and I asked them why they didn't have crosses at Mormon churches. The little missionary said, "If your friend was killed with a knife, would you wear a knife around your neck to remember him?"

It made very good sense to me, but then I'm not your run-of-the-mill Christian.

[rpannier]

15. I'm not conflicted

To blame the cartoonist or the paper for the violence is ridiculous. People see an opportunity to take advantage of the cartoon for their own ends. It's my understanding that this comic was originally published in September. Where was the outrage then?
It seems to me (IMHO) that the Islamic Taliban-types can dish out the criticism (ie their mocking of Jews and Israel), but they can't take any sort of criticism.
In addition, I don't see this necessarily as mocking Mohammad. The comic could be simply pointing out that the suicide bombers are using the religion and it's last great prophet as an excuse to kill innocent people. (If he is, the cartoonist would be 100% correct because they are)

[Igel]

16. I hear various other groups denigrated daily.

Sometimes in words that they would find blasphemous. And yet when they scream bloody murder, nobody cares about their feelings. They need to grow up. And progressives have to figure out what their values are: Do Xians get to shut up artists and others who defame their religion through insensitivity, like some (few) progressives argue about Islam? Or do we support the expression of insensitivity, even if at the expense of a group that's considered oppressed--or, at least, currently oppressed, since that group did plenty of oppressing when it could, and still does, when it can. Even to say *that* is risky, in some circles.

Similarly, consider how Muhammed is drawn. Many of the pictures were drawn in an offensive manner. Oddly, however, they use the same kinds of caricatures that Arabs draw about themselves. So it's not the facial features. It's who drew them. They're caricatures. They take stereotypical--frequently common--traits and exaggerate them. Most caricatures aren't flattering. Such is the nature of caricature. They object to the caricatures on principle: You don't dare, under penalty of death (esp. if you're not Muslim) say bad things about their prophet.

Many Muslims have also drawn Muhammed, albeit respectfully. There's a website or two of such images collected from Muslim sources and Muslim countries. It's officially banned in many countries--speaking highly of the degree of personal freedom allowed--but then again, conservative Xianity also banned adultery and sodomy. But adultery and sodomy still occurred. Representations of Muhammed are made, and riots don't break out, the people who did the drawing and printing aren't killed or threatened with death, by and large. It's not that the pictures were drawn--even though the conservative kinds of Islam that we find otherwise repressive also ban *them*--it's who drew them. So while they don't usually caricature him, nonetheless over the last millenium he has been represented graphically.

Moreover, consider many of the assumptions that hold. The Danish *government*, presumably on behalf of the Danish people, must apologize for the paper: as though the government *must* be responsible. They haven't gotten a clue about freedom of the press, or their value system doesn't allow for it. No defending that: they're either uninformed, willfully ignorant, or fascist. Moreover, the paper's apology isn't sufficient: punishment and retribution for a speech crime in another country is required. Let's ponder this: So, what would they say if we asked that the mufti in Mecca be punished for defaming Xianity? Jump and down for joy, or say that they're special.

I'm obviously not torn in the least. Claimed victimization doesn't justify bad behavior. Esp. when the behavior isn't being justified on the basis of victimization, but superiority. And I'm not going to be a hypocrite saying that Arabs and Muslims must have their sensitivities enforced, and censorship imposed to make them happy, while my fellow citizens are raked over the coals for simply complaining about things that they find offensive.

[mzmolly]

17. "why should any one religion or idea be off limits to criticism or even ..

mockery."

I fully agree.

I've not seen the cartoon, regardless you make good points.

[0007]

18. Right on!

If I don't believe Muhammed's image is sacred, why should I be forced to observe the stricture of a belief system I don't believe in?

[StrafingMoose]

19. From what I saw of these cartoons

It's quite mild. The ones that can be "shocking" or "controversial" had an effect that's quite easy to forecast. What did they expect exactly ? I mean drawing Mohammed with a bomb for turban (or keffi whatever they call it) is like not expecting to fall when jumping out of the 5th floor's window.

I think it is important to look at this not in the angle of religion, but strict empirical effects.

More angry Arabs? Good for the war on terror, they need more "terrorists" and more radicalized people to justify it. Now, probably that if this thing escalates high enough, the good "governements" in the West will clamp down on free speech trough "hate speech" laws with the preface "Sorry, we have to do it for the civilized world's own good".

[Leopolds Ghost]

52. It seems the publication wanted to show the "threat posed by Islam"

did it to illustrate "the threat posed by Islam" to the West.

Additionally there seem to be quite a few overtly reactionary political statements, etc. In other words... yes, they did do it to provoke racial animosity.

They even ALTER THE WORK of one of the submissions to add an editorial statement chastising a cartoonist for not "getting with the program":

The cartoonist submitted a drawing of a Danish schoolboy named Mohammed and the paper scribbles on it: "we don't think takes seriously the threat posed by followers of Islam in the west" or something to that effect.

[StrafingMoose]

87. Incredible PR hack job eh?

these intelligence agencies really do tentacles in everywhere media outlet of every country don't they?

[Solo_in_MD]

20. Actually I am pi**ed

That Z and other progressive journals are not carrying them and creating more!

Its bad enough with the fundies, but at least they do it via the marketplace. We ca not allow this blasphemy nonsense out of muslims to gain a toehold. Jerry Falwell, the chairman of the JCS, and the imams have no business telling the press what to write or draw.

[seabeyond]

22. enough of muslims and christians taking personal and having

to protect god..... like god isn't more than capable of knowing understanding exactly what is up. if you believe in god, you believe god is all, omnipresent, in all things, so even if a person does something that may be offensive to our religion, as a christian we believe jesus is in the heart. jesus knows just why this person does what they do. jesus loves this person regardless. who the hell am i, not i knowing anything, to feel the need to "protect"

all have just got to let this go. if you believe in jesus,.... then this is silliness to think we can even defend christ. just silly

[FlaGranny]

23. This all makes me wonder

why that idiot Bush ever thought he could create democracies in places where the culture is so different from ours that their leaders and many of the people can't live with the idea of freedom of thought and speech. Democracy is impossible without them. There are things that offend all of us, some religious, some cultural, but most of us, yes, even the whacko fanatical fundamentalist Christians, don't kidnap and kill innocent people who had nothing to do with the offense, although a few of them would if they thought they could get away with it.

[B3Nut]

83. You know...that's what I thought

back when Mr. Bush was initially claiming that he was going to bring democracy to Iraq. Even I, who was still a Republican at that time (I've since repented of my sins hehe) saw right through that - I said then that there was no way that (1) you could force democracy on anyone, it has to come from within a populace itself and (2) democracy would be at best a charade and fiasco if implemented in a culture whose predominant worldview saw democratic principles as anathema.

Silly me, actually using my brain...no wonder I became a Democrat. :) I sorely wish my former fellow Republicans would follow suit, but I'm not exactly optimistic on that point. :(

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[fujiyama]

24. I'm amused

by their whining. It's likee when theere weree rriots over whahta Jerry Falwell said.

I'm not Muslim or Christian or aa "Person of the Book". Muhammad isn't sacred to me. Neither is Jesus. People are way too sensitive over thhis shit. Get over it is all I can tell them.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

25. Free Speech.

Its a bitch.

Islamics and non-Islamics alike need to get used to the fact that Free Speech is the right of everyone.

[Benbow]

49. Free speech is not an absolute or unqualified "right" n/t

[Freedom_Aflaim]

62. yup. Just ask cindy. n/t

[fishwax]

26. Quote: "No one can say a bad word about our prophet."

Fuck that. I've no interest in living under the rules of theocracy. What we've got here is getting too close for comfort as it is.

I understand the concern about Islamaphobia, and it is a legitimate concern. But if it is ever to be defeated, it must be defeated by ideas, and not the repression of ideas.

[Orangeone]

28. What's if

the cartoon was homophobic? Would people say that the newspaper should only care about free speech?

[eggman67]

38. I would.

As far as I'm concerned freedom includes the right to be an asshole. The rest of us would be just as free to speak in opposition. Neither violence nor censorship is an appropriate answer.

[formernaderite]

95. no ones saying you can't denounce or boycott stuff

it's the violent reaction that's out of proportion. In the end I do not support censorship, no matter how offensive the material.

[smirkymonkey]

134. Would homosexuals issue death threats and advocate violence,

not only toward the paper, but to the nation and even the continent. I don't think so.

[SPKrazy]

29. It Was An Insensitive Cartoon

But I gotta say that I really don't give a shit!

[paradox]

30. Oh well

Free speech is a bitch isn't it.

[BushOut06]

31. We make fun of Christians all the time

And I'm sure that Muslims have probably made some pretty crude jokes about Christians as well. I heard someone on the radio today saying we should respect the central tenets of various religions (in this case, he was referring to some shock-jock joking about the hajj stampedes). My thought was hell, we make fun of Christian beliefs and traditions all the time, from communion to speaking in tongues.

[tabasco]

33. I'm not torn at all.

The newspaper has the right to print whatever it wants without threats of violence.

Religious people should not expect the rest of the world to follow their rules. That is insanity.

If they don't like what the newspaper prints they should urge people not to buy it. That's what's known as civilized behavior.

I don't want a bunch of mullahs in the Midle east telling me what my newspaper can print.

Religious fanatics and their insane "jihads" are the problem here, not newspapers printing controversial cartoons.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. A guy named Julius Streicher was fond of racist cartoons.

The cartoons aren't about questioning Islamic beliefs - they are about racism and hate.

[tabasco]

43. He was also a big fan of censorship.

A controversial cartoon is not the real problem here. It is religious people who think the whole world has to follow their rules. A newspaper has the right to print controversial cartoons without the threat of violence. If religious leaders somewhere do not like the cartoon, they should urge people to boycott the newspaper. That is called civilized behavior. Threats of violence and these insane jihads are much worse than printing a controversial cartoon.

I don't want any religious fanatic telling me what my newspaper can print whether it be Pat Robertson or some mullah in the Middle East.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. So, you consider the people who publish racist cartoons "civilized"?

[tabasco]

89. We read a lot of things in the press we don't agree with.

I suppose we should just censor all the stuff we find provocative, repellent, or racist (the cartoons are not racist IMO). Even better, let's kill the publisher of that material.

If we only tolerate speech we agree with, it's not really free speech.

If you are putting a controversial cartoon on par with violence and threats of violence, you need to examine your value system.

[bucklebone]

35. I'm not torn at all

That part of the world has citizens that want to remain completely isolated from outside influences (meaning Western encroachment). Unfortunately, we live in a global society and we can't have one set of rules for one group of people and another set for another group.

Either equal rights, free speech and freedom of relgion are right, or it's not.

[tn-guy]

37. Frankly, I think it's time to recognize reality

It is an unpleasant truth but a truth just the same: Either we will reshape radical Islamic culture to be more like ours or it will reshape our culture. Radical Islamists do not accept the concept of "live and let live" and will continue their efforts until they prevail or are unquestionably defeated.

We may not like it but part of being an adult is being willing to face up to unpleasant, inconvenient facts. It's time for those who embrace western culture (and by that I mean the rule of law, rights to free expression, self determination, etc) to be willing to defend it.

[smirkymonkey]

40. Good point.

The Muslim world is hopelessly stuck in the Middle Ages. The rest of the world should not have to suffer for thier unwillingness to face contemporary reality.

[Djinn]

44. Just the muslim world?

hate to tell you this but there's an enormous number of backward middle ages dwelling folks in your own country who are not Muslims. How many Americans beleive in the devil and creationism? outside the US that gets many raised eyebrow and jokes about American intelligence, any idea how many death threat abortion providers get in the US, particularly in the south? guess that's demonstraive of American and particularly Christian inability to deal with free spoeech and democracy

try and remember that there are over a billion muslims in the world, what percentage of them even batted an eyelid at these cartoons let alone advocated violence.

yes Islamic numpties exist so do numpties of every other religion/idealogy etc

for me freedom of speech is important, you should be free to say and publish anything you like, slag off muslims, jews, christians, conservatives, liberals whoever, on this I'm more in line with US thinking than my own nations (where religious vilification laws exist) if you're offended by something I say or do then debate me on it, publish your version of the truth or simply ignore it.

that said, there is an extreme amount of ignorance and bigotry directed towards muslims these days and much of it comes from the mouths of "lefties" - claiming this reflects on the "clash of civilisations" meme is ridiculous, claiming this illustrates the inability of the middle east to be democratic (the reason for most of the middle east NOT being democratic has much to do with the west not allowing democracy in these regions - perhaps if we stopped supported vicious dictators in the middle east, and overthrowing folks like Mossadegh because their plans do not bode well for western money, the people there might be more willing to listen to our speeches about democracy?)

yes the people threatening harm on the cartoonist are sad and dangerous but it's an IGNORANCE problem not a Muslim one.

[smirkymonkey]

85. No, and if this was a post on Christofascism, you would see that

I respond in exactly the same way. It's just that this PARTICULAR post happens to deal with Islamofascism.

How is it that we don't ALLOW democracy in these countries? Kind of like the British didn't allow democracy in America? Oh wait, never mind.

They don't want democracy - for god's sake they don't even treat women and children like human beings. Why is it that people can not engage in proper criticism of the Middle East simply because those who inhabit the land have brown skin? I am tired of giving them a pass on thier human rights abuses simply because I am afraid that some broken records on DU will pounce with thier usual cries of "racism". If these people were Scandinavian - doing the exact same thing- you had better believe that people on this board would be all over their asses.

Because you see, the reaction being discussed is ultimately anti-democratic, anti-progressive and anti-freedom, regardless of who is doing the reacting.

[fishwax]

117. i agree that it's an ignorance problem, not a Muslim one, but

the ignorance problem is rooted in religious fundamentalism, and it is pretty difficult (not impossible) to find concentrated pockets of religious fundamentalism of any stripe without that ignorance problem coming up. And while we certainly have problems with religious fundamentalists in the U.S., for example, they aren't running the show all by themselves, as they are in Saudia Arabia, Iran, etc.

There used to be "Christian" Nations in the same sense that there are now "Muslim" nations, and those nations saw horrible oppression of religious minorities and religious dissent. Thankfully, we secularized. I agree that it's too simple to just dismiss this as a west vs. muslim clash of cultures, but I think there are aspects of that model that are relevant, particularly in the sense of secularism vs. religious fundamentalism.

[NuttyFluffers]

42. pfft, that can be said about all reactionaries. old news.

stick-up-their-ass reactionaries have been with us since time immemorial, they'll never change and there'll always be a few. there's violent psychos like that in all religions, creeds, and nations. it's just like that bit of sales knowledge: 10% of the people will always say no 10% of the people will always say yes. these people are insane, learn to marginalize them. it's the 80% in the middle that you should appeal to, but far too often they won't speak up.

so what there's a few death threats? *yawn* those happen all the time by psycho christians in america anyways. it's just easy to forget about them during topics like these. let the shit-for-brains go play in their little corner and let the investigators and peace officers round up any of the particularly dangerous ones. no biggie.

[Silverhair]

47. I haven't seen any Christians rioting in the streets over an offensive...

...item. There is a huge difference in the levels of anger we are talking about. You are making a BBs to cannonballs comparison and seeing them as equal.

[NuttyFluffers]

68. over the perspective of history it's the same

there's been similar rioting in the streets over an "offensive item" by religious nuts in the past, even in christianity, and even after the 'western enlightenment.' this is not really that different, it's just the latest in a long historical pattern. this is just the latest du jour of frenzied fools. eventually it'll be another age of firestorms like the early part of last century, and then, after much bloodshed, the sensible will rise again. apparently humanity let's the nuts run the asylum every 50 years or so. this too shall pass.

[FlaGranny]

90. No, they don't usually, but there is a faction

that WOULD if they felt they could do so without consequence. Granted, it is a small faction. Religious fanaticism is dangerous and can affect certain "Christians" just like it can others. (Note Christian is in quotes because I'm not talking about mainstream Christians.)

Remember, there are very ungodly people all over the world of many religions who praise God while they are committing crimes against humanity.

[barb162]

64. Threats of kidnappings, gunmen running through hotels looking

for victims, death threats, bomb threats, boycotts,consulates and EU office being forcibly shut, flag burnings, armed demonstrations, etc. This is a pretty sick and long list for a few cartoons. What peace officers in the Mideast round up these nutcase zealots? The EU aid people and other Europeans in Gaza are leaving town.

[NuttyFluffers]

69. not all that surprising, considering the recent history

the oppressive regimes in many of those countries only allow one outlet of expressing frustration, which often pushes the people into the hands of wing nut leaders. and then when these people go ballistic the state doesn't do anything because the more they harass others the less they have to worry about what those crazies are up to. but meh, just a stage of human nuttiness. it'll eventually decay and the sane will have to pick up the pieces after.

for a recent (in the big scheme of history sense) the list of stuff you listed happened in america during the 1860-1920s all across this nation about race relations. and that was the age of industrialization and brave new leaps in thinking. yet whole towns, counties, even states (and considering many of our states are the size of nations...) would be whipped up into orgiastic frenzies of violence just on the rumor of 'black man raped white woman,' or 'the jews/catholics/xyz are comin'.

pretty much violence and mob rule is the normal state of humanity. every few decades the sane ones get tired of the crazies, shut them down, clean up after them. and then as things get calm all the sane people ('guards') take a nap. meanwhile the crazies gather and gather, then are unleashed, and anything and everything can/will set 'em off, and the asylum is ruled by inmates for a while. nothing all that new or particularly special to middle eastern culture or islamic religion.

is it bad? yeah. is it unique to islam or ME nations? no. in fact, i expect usa to go through an orgy of destruction in just a few years. lord knows the path is already paved.

[barb162]

98. Oh yeah the racism in this country, whew

Just recently, 2005, the FBI dug up Emmett Till's body (the young boy who was accused of whistling at a white woman in the South in the 1950s and was beaten to death). And there was the horrible/insane case where that poor black man was dragged behind a car/killed a few years ago.
What I find different about this is it's 12 satirical cartoons. Cartoons, for pete's sake. The Danish paper apologized but the apology was somehow not good enough. Demonstrations around the world and threats of more kidnappings, death threats, etc. Remember the catholic bashing going on at DU and elsewhere when the old pope died/ the new pope was elected ? Whoa. But to me, it was free speech. I didn't see Catholics demonstrating and sending out death threats to newspapers either. I am so against censorship. And whatever happened to peacefully demonstrating if you don't like something? What's with these death threats and violence by these zealots?

[NuttyFluffers]

137. ;) i make no claims to understand or justify crazy people

i mean, there was no reason to have spasms of violence against jews or catholics in america either, but they happened. i mean, catholicism is still within christianity, it's just a different sect, so why all the protestant v. catholic hate? and yet it puts sunni v. shia hate into perspective. no society is immune or particularly imbued with more or less stupidity in their history. it's just a matter of when it flares up and how well the historical record is doctored to cover it up (and if you note, western civ is remarkably good at doctoring their history and giving the illusion of sensibility -- china is another one). nothing all that unusual, when one looks at all of humanity through a less filtered lens of history.

i just note that these high-strung spazzes are everywhere. the poster that started this side discussion made the insinuation that this madness is unique to islam, hence my pfft. there's crazy and sane people in all social groups. it's that loud, arrogant, tense, brooding asshole in any group of friends. and did you ever notice that whenever you go hang out at a party these people tend to gravitate to each other? they either get along, gang up and wreck havoc, or they hate each other on sight, clash and wreck havoc. seems to be just some genetic variable path -- probably evolution leaves it in humanity's gene pool as a useful option, just in case. i suppose a few crazy people make great shock troops in the case of an emergency for our species or something. but every now and then a touch of chlorine is needed to keep the algae in the pool to manageable levels.

[barb162]

142. I was being rhetorical; I didn't expect that you could tell why

the people are being violent.

Japan is very good at covering its history too (the Rape of Naking for starters)

[Benbow]

50. hahahahahaha - you are not being adult!

This is a classic example of the arrogance and ignorance of the West. Eg you are conflating Islamic terrorists with Islam. Your sentiments are horrible.

[Leopolds Ghost]

53. Rule of law!? HA!!!!! Tell that to Fareed Zakaria,

a SECULAR muslim NEOCON who writes for that guardian of secular US culture, Newsweek. He spends all his time chastizing fellow Arabs on the model they should follow.

Democracy is just a moment, according to Zakaria and his fellow neocons. CAPITALISM and the liberty of the ruling class, not Democracy or civil rights of the workers, is what must be preserved, according to Zakaria, and he says so every week in Newsweek. I.e. return to the "classical liberalism" of the 17th century.

Western "culture" these days is a tool, a prop used by the ruling class. They have devalued and desecrated LOCAL CULTURAL VALUES and (generalized) Christian values, to boot. If they had not done so you would not be so self-conscious of the percieved "weakness" of Western culture.

They WANT an enemy they can blame for their eviscerating of civil society, corporatizing of culture, and politicizing of religion.

They WANT a fundamentalist, dark-skinned opponent so they can say, "see, they do it too."

[balzac]

58. Yes, I concur. Fareed Zakaria is a NeoCon and a NeoLiberal

I still remember what he said when Bush had troops massed in Kuwait before the war:

"Bush has drawn his sword, now he must use it."

NOOOO!!!

[sleipnir]

54. I think you are right. There is little room for discussion with some.

But then again, I fear that it's not just the Radical Islamists who pose a major threat, there are elements in the Radical Christian movement in our country that are nearly as bad as the radical Islamics.

That said, the Islamic issue is far more present because of the sheer numbers involved, not just a few people in a few states here in America.

I think this is the next cultural war, and if this is their response, I'll certainly fight back. That might not be a popular opinion on DU, but my tolerance does have an end. This reaction from the Islamic world is dreadfully close for me. I think it is conceivable that we may have to engage in a "culture war" against radical proponents of Islam, just as we are forced to fight a culture war here in America against those who would also like to roll back the clock to 1050AD.

[tn-guy]

125. Agree and disagree

I think you are correct that there are some Christian fundamentalists who are just as nutty as some Islamic fundamentalists.

However; I don't think anyone can make a case that the Christian fundamentalists are "nearly as bad". Despite my revulsion at Jerry Falwel and Pat Robertson, it's been years since either of them cut off anyone' head for daring to oppose their aims.

The point you make about the sheer numbers involved hits the nail squarely on the head. Dangerously violent Christian fanatics are most definitely on the outer fringe of western society. Dangerously violent Muslim fanatics are part of the mainstream.

[thebigidea]

65. I'm sure you're just the sort that should be out there reshaping cultures

what pomposity. Oh, dat white man's burden.

[NuttyFluffers]

41. meh, i tend to side with humor on issues. but there's a very fine line...

for the most part i say, "go for it." we all gotta have a sense of humor about even the most serious aspects of our lives, otherwise we'll get all wound up and go crazy. that said, i know there are varying degrees of humor capacity in people -- some get only a shotglass full (poor things), while others get big ol' brewing vats. but they all deserve their allotment of humor, they just need to know when to step away when they've reached their limit.

now with that said, some of the cartoons (i checked the link posted in this topic) were over the line for my taste. but, along with being petty, callous and crass, i was mostly displeased at the utter craptastic quality of said pieces (poor quality humor offends me greatly). these irritating few were just... bad; far too easy cheap shots and poorly crafted. bad quality humor shouldn't be encouraged. and yes i'm wearing my elitist miter as i pontificate. :P

about the boycott, meh. :shrug: it's to be expected. besides, let people vote with their money as they please. as long as they aren't under the yoke of a monopoly who am i to care? spend as they wish. they could buy pallets of dutch milk, pour it into a depression, pee in it, and call the pool of curdled milk and ammonia 'the danish oasis' for all i care. in fact, it'd almost make an amusing tourist attraction -- oil rich countries could buy a lot of danish milk to pee in. :evilgrin:

[Silverhair]

46. It isn't just the cartoon. Van Gogh's nephew was murdered.

About a year ago in Holland, he was killed and an anti-Western screed was pinned to his body. He had been critical of the way Islamist treat women.

The Islamists are NOT interested in dialogue. The want to conquer to entire world and force it to accept Islam and Islamic law, and will be happy with nothing less.

In Europe, people are becoming uneasy about it and RW politicians are using the issue to make gains.

[balzac]

57. I have no sense of humor when it comes to religious fundies

Solidarity with Blasphemers! My blasphemy got censored here earlier. Check it out:

http://balzac.wordpress.com/

[barb162]

60. Okay, I like your blasphemy, LOL

[thebigidea]

67. ooo, i'm so scared. They're gonna conquer the world!

pretty pisspoor excuses for enemies the neocons want to foist on us: the new Hitlers! they wanna conquer ze world! gasp!

well, let me know when they take Circle Pines, MN.

[balzac]

55. I Believe Blasphemy is our SACRED DUTY

Just make sure the Muslims know you also hate Bush with a white-hot, righteous rage. Also, let them see how badly we can Blaspheme the Christians. Blasphemy is healthy, war is not.

[Leopolds Ghost]

59. I'm surprised noone's mentioned in Europe THERE IS NO RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH

In France, you can't wear headscarves in public buildings.

Reminds me of that Dead Kennedys song someone quoted, "California Uber Alles."

Not all fascists are pro-religion. Many, in fact most, of the neoliberal ruling class are vehemently secular and opposed to free speech that offends THEM.

They see religion not as a source for moral values, but as a tool to divide.

[barb162]

63. The press in Europe seems a lot freer than ours

You'll notice the Danish Prime Minister consistently saying he and the government have no power to tell the papers what they can /can't do

[riderinthestorm]

66. I believe the headscarf ban applies only to schoolchildren in schools

And the actual law states that no overt religious gear is to be worn in school. As its played out in reality, the Muslims in France haven't had a lot of problems with it.

And I come down on the side of free speech on this one 110%.

[Michael_UK]

71. They've probably not mentioned it because it's not true (nt)

[barb162]

118. I see the headscarves /veiling as a women's rights issue too

[The Magistrate]

70. Moslems, Sir

Have no more right than anyone else to require people to adhere to their own standards, when those people do not share their beliefs. People have to learn to live with other people doing things that offend their sensibilities. This is particularly the case where the thing that offends the sensibilites does no concrete physical harm to anyone. There is no essential difference between a person saying this cartoon is so offensive people must die over it and a person saying the sight of two men embracing is so offensive they ought to be killed. In neither case is any harm at all done to the person making the claim, or to anyone else, for that matter.

It is true that these cartoons were pblished with the aim of stirring anti-immigrant sentiment in Denmark, and so they are certainly a species of dirty pool politically, and proceed from a racist mind-set. This is sufficient reason to condemn the publication.

[NuttyFluffers]

140. oh, it was deliberate racist, dirty-politics shit stirring? so not good...

i had a hunch that that was what it was, but gave the paper/editor/whoever the benefit of the doubt. i'll give attempts at humor much leeway because i think mirth helps us all loosen up and chill. but some of those cartoons came off as really bad humor and reminded me of deliberately shit-stirring RW humor. i didn't label it as much, just writing it off as people who have incredibly undeveloped senses of humor. but if it was deliberate bad humor for a desired violent result i find it undefensable -- because there's no defense for bad humor. :P

well, they got what they want... but i think it's pretty contemptable that they did this on purpose. the crazies' reactions were completely predictable, but they would've been there anyway no matter what (ME is pretty much a powder keg of tension right now. if it wasn't a cartoon, it would've been about someone farting in the middle of a belly dance or something). there's never any pleasing reactionaries, so why bother. yet neither behavior so far is defendable. and crappy RW humor is such an offense to the art that is humor that someone deserves to be tickled 'til they pee their chinos.
:evilgrin:

[fakeshemp]

72. Not at all- I stand 100% with the newspapers involved and free speech

Religion is an ideological construct, and no ideology should be protected from criticism, ridicule or indeed abuse, whether it be a religious, political or any other kind of ideology. The fact that most (but far from all) Muslims in the west are from Asian (not neccesarily Arab- most Muslims in Britain are of Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Indian descent) backgrounds should not give their religion special protection, any more than I should be considered anti-American for telling the invariably American ;) Mormons who try to convert me in the street here in Britain to go sexually relieve themselves. The reactions of some Muslim radicals in both Europe and the Middle East to these cartoons is doing far more to stoke up anti-Muslim sentiment than any cartoon ever could, I'm afraid.

[DemExpat]

73. I agree, fakeshemp, I also am firmly with the newspapers here.

Welcome to DU, by the way.

:hi:

DemEx

[fakeshemp]

75. Thanks DemEx

:hi:

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

88. Well said & welcome. nt

[smirkymonkey]

133. Welcome to DU!

Great post, by the way. :hi:

[fakeshemp]

135. Thanks to you both

:hi:

[PatGund]

77. Don't get me started........

Here in sunny Doha, Qatar, all the local "Hypermarkets" have big signs now saying "NO DANISH PRODUCTS". Most of the restarants as well.

We've had two days in a row now with anti-Danish and anti-Europe rallies. And, oh look, yet another one today after friday services. One bad enough that the US Embassy issued a warden message telling US nationals to avoid travel in those areas of Doha.

Maybe it's the fact I'm in a minority faith even in the states, and am used to the ignorant mocking that faith. But damn, some of the Muslims protesting this are either the thinnest-skinned people ever, or they're using it as an excuse.

I'm betting on excuse myself.

Does freedom of speech trump cries of "blasphamy" ??? I'm having to side with freedom of speech on that one.

[mdmc]

78. not exactly Trump..

you can yell "Nigger Crack Whores!" at girls in Harlem. You may legally have the right to do so. The pimps would be breaking the law if they poked your eye out.

The cartoonist had the right to express themselves. Now they can take responsibility for the reaction.

[leftofthedial]

79. the world will be a miserable, hate-filled, murderous place

until we kill all the "deities."

I am fully in support of anything that ridicules, demeans or marginalizes superstition.

[the_real_38]

91. dittos -

n/t

[izzybeans]

96. If there was a Cartoon of Jesus or David or Buddha depicted as

a knight slashing their way through the Ottoman Empire (or a Tiger eating the flesh of a Chinese peasant) would that be acceptable? Is it really a critique of religion?

Why not Osama Bin Laden or a member of Hammas? Why not James Dobson or a member of the Christian Coalition? Instead billions of people are swept up under the banner of an indistinguishable fundamentalism; nearly all of them do not belong there. Dobson, Robertson and Bin Laden together in a rooom would be an accurate representation of the current situation; but Muhammed with a turbin for a bomb? Was the caption, Raghead Warrior? At least it would have been honest about the ethnocentrism if that were the case.

A critique of religion doesn't look like that. IMHO.

I saw a few more of the cartoons and found only one that seemed to actually directly critique the fundamentalism. The rest might as well have been pictures of the black face monkey or the "crazy chinamen" cartoon that depicted american racism in all its ugly colors.

[esbelt]

99. How does it work in DK

Is it acceptable you ask; is it not more a madder of it is legal or not. If a paper is provoking a religion shut it be legal.
aim from Denmark and here it is legal!

The fact is that Denmark is the oldest democracy in the world (more than 150 years)
we are number one in the world when it comes to aid to the "third world" (based on BNP)
we are the strongest supporter in Europe for a independent Palestine state.
We are having true free religion for all people here.

But we also have a strong believe in free speech, so everything that is said about the
felling about the pictures, comes down to one fact.... it is the right of the paper here!

you may dislike or even get angry of the pictures, then you can write to the paper or make a
comment in any published media, and use your right of speech, to criticize it, but in DK
you have this rights and we will fight for this.

[izzybeans]

106. I thought I was excercizing my right to speech.

As are you.

I reserve the right to call a spade a spade.

[SupplySideLiberal]

111. well put

I agree.

[BurtWorm]

136. Would Christians be offended by an image of Jesus used to make

a political point about the religion? Not that I know of. Not to say there's something inherently strong about Christians, who can be weak as water around images of Christ as a closet gay man. Just that they've had to learn to deal, over the course of 200 years since the Enlightenment, with the fact that other people don't see their religion as God's gift to humankind. Muslims, it is hoped, will come to see that as well and come to terms with it. Or the religious wars will needlessly continue.

[genie_weenie]

97. Look again this is road apples

Here is a for instance, a newspaper (or website) publishes cartoonish images of out Current Sitting President. Many people who disagree with his policies and viewpoints laugh and republish them and use them as fodder or whatever.

However, a large group of people in the united States then informs the Website and Newspapers, that they have blasphemed! THE WORST OFF ALL SINS!!!!! But, not only that they demand apologies, the issue death threats, they state While Bush is not god we revere him as such and if you don't agree with our views we are going to protest, gather outside your offices, burn effigies of you, kill you, bomb your offices, burn down your buildings, call on THE UN to FORCE you to recant and remove or ambassadors from your nation and Call for HOLY WAR, with guns and bombs and stab Filmmakers who dare cause such an affront to Bush (PBUH)! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is the point, plain and simple, there are no boundaries, when it comes to ridicule. Ridicule is what force the Church into the modern times (That you France Voltaire my King) and it is plain and simple.

Islam is not free from ridicule, disdain, or any commentary upon it.

Just because something is sacred to you, does not mean it is sacred to me.

Islam is Peace, Peace is Islam, Islam is Peace, Peace is Islam, saying something doesn't make it so...

[SillyGoose]

100. There is much hypocrisy in the muslim outrage about the cartoons...

They don't have a problem when anti-semitic items are published in Arab publications and they don't have a problem when people of other faiths are persecuted in various Islamic nations but they demand that everyone else refrain from depicting their religion in a bad light.

And, I find the muslim argument that the cartoons falsely associate muslims with terror hypocritical because they are responding with terror thereby reinforcing that notion.

Many Muslims complain that the cartoons reinforce a dangerous confusion between Islam and the Islamist terrorism that the vast majority of Muslims abhor.
...
An international dispute over European newspaper cartoons deemed blasphemous by some Muslims gained momentum today as gunmen threatened the European Union offices in the Gaza Strip...
...
The incident is causing diplomatic strains as well as threats to citizens of countries where the cartoons have been printed.

They get no sympathy from me on this. Its a free speech issue. When they stop denigrating other faiths and when they stop resorting to violence as a response, their argument will carry more weight.

[Dorian Gray]

102. I agree with your thoughts on this Burt Worm...

I think that it is fantastic to have this dialog, as well.

I think that the Muslim world is doing itself a disservice by violently reacting to the cartoons. Every day, political statements, cartoons, and the like are critical of other religious or political beliefs, and it would be dangerous to outlaw that type of speech.

[Marie26]

104. Hard to sympathize

Honestly, I'm not very sympathetic. Some Palestinians actually kidnapped a tourist to show their outrage. But many of the same Arab countries that were so outraged print incredibly vicious anti-Semetic cartoons. That seems hypocritical to me, like they want others to respect their religion, w/o respecting others. It all seems to go beyond wanting freedom to practice Islam, to requiring everyone else to observe it as well. Freedom means freedom to be religious, but also freedom to mock something. You can't have one form of freedom w/o the other. But that's my own Western viewpoint.

[bloom]

107. Free Speech and Europe...

While this cites German law - I think it is interesting to consider in light of the controversy.

The cartoons were clearly done to incite people. They have had that effect.

Some people cheer ridiculing others. I don't think it is that great of a thing, myself. Nothing to be applauded - at any rate.

Article (51) of Germany's Basic Code states that a citizen's right to free speech cannot be used to conflict with another's right to "personal dignity." As a result, the German criminal code condemns the making of racial insults (Art. 130), the writing or disseminating of works that incite racial hatred (Art. 131), and the trivializing or denial of Nazi atrocities such as the Holocaust (Art. 194). As a practical matter, no such activity could be made criminal in this country (the US)....

When Lauck was arrested in Denmark and extradited to Germany after traveling abroad, the ironic thing was that the Internet was on the verge of making his Nebraska-based, neo-Nazi paper publishing empire obsolete. Today, any would-be Gary Lauck from any corner of America is free to post racist material for foreign consumption on the World Wide Web.

It is true that European countries have prosecuted American Internet service providers under hate-speech laws. France, for example, forced Yahoo! to stop posting auctions of Nazi memorabilia on its French portal (although it was still available to French users via the U.S. Yahoo! portal), and CompuServe was sued in Germany over its hate sites.

But these lawsuits were possible only because Yahoo! and CompuServe were doing business on foreign soil. People like neo-Nazi William Pierce, who makes his incendiary race war novel, The Turner Diaries, available on the Net in multiple languages from West Virginia but has no physical presence in Europe, are not threatened.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=193

[bloom]

113. America has become "Hate Site Central"

Isn't that just wonderful?!?

As part of the continuing saga of the aforementioned case - Lauck has been able to "capitalize" on his bad-"luck" and hosts hate web sites in the states that wouldn't be tolerated in Europe - esp. Germany. I guess those cartoonists should bring their "hate" cartoons over and host them here, eh? Boy wouldn't THAT be great. :sarcasm:

Now, after a four-year stint in a German prison, Lauck is proving that he has learned his lesson ý but not the one that German authorities had hoped. From his Nebraska home, the "Farm Belt Fýhrer" is again building a hate publishing empire aimed largely at the German market. But in a sign of how times have changed, Lauck is taking full advantage of the latest technology. And once again, the First Amendment is shielding his activities from prosecution.

Today, Lauck operates a neo-Nazi Internet site that is primarily written in German and intended for German readers. More importantly, he operates a Web-hosting company ý zensurfrei.com, meaning "censorship-free" ý that has actively targeted European clients, mostly Germans, since he set it up in 2001.

"Political repression is increasing in Europe!" his page warns. "European webmasters can reduce their risk by moving their website to the USA!" Lauck's firm promises secrecy, and its staff can converse fluently with clients in German. To house one Web site on Lauck's server runs $240 a year.

Lauck is not alone. A very large number of European hate sites are housed on American computer servers to avoid speech laws in their own countries.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=155

[bloom]

109. "Hate speech: new European perspective"

International legal provisions

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

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

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

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

The cartoons were certainly an incitement to violence - whether WE think they should have been or not.

[SupplySideLiberal]

110. fundamentalism is based on weakness

If you are ready to kill and maim someone for disagreeing with you about your religion, you've got major self esteem problems. I think that goes for a frighteningly large fraction of the Muslim world, and has its roots in the economic failure of those societies. It also applies to Pres. Bush and his religion of representative democracy.

The only long term hope is to help strengthen the weak. Encourage development and aid in Muslim countries and vote for American leaders who simply want to help the rest of the world, not remake it in the image of the US.

The Danish cartoonists had every right to say what they did, and the last thing their governments should do is censor them. However, conflating Islam as a whole with terrorism only infuriates ordinary muslims. That helps no one..

[esbelt]

116. Your right

but you have to know the stories behind the pictures.
Here in Denmark a writer had published a new book on the religion Islam, He failed to find any cartoonists to make
any pictures in his book, simply out of fear!
then the newspaper Jylland-posten took up the story of salman rushdi etc. and asked the question if simple cartoon pictures would be censured out of fear in DK.
so they asked some professional cartoonists to make a picture and printed them out of respect of our free speech.
The paper have now made several apologizes and they have pupblised that in fact we do not have free speech in DK
simply because they regret it and would never had don it if they had calculated the effect!

It is not the "art" or the outlook of the pictures that is the issue in DK, more than the fact that we do not have free speech when it comes to religion!

[SupplySideLiberal]

120. I wish the media would report what you just said

Thank you very much for filling in these vital details. I've been following this issue for days in the American media, and I've yet to hear this.

You said it in just a few sentences. Can't we get more than the tiniest soundbite in the news these days? Just a few extra bites, when a story is vitally important?!!?

[bloom]

132. What I would find more troubling

about the "Freedom of Speech" restrictions

ie.

International legal provisions

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

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


Would not be that people from one ideology could not ridicule another's ideology - but if people within an ideology or religion could not express their ideas about it - that would seem ridiculous. I don't think the case could made that someone who was Muslim was engaging in "hate" speech if they said things that differed with what other Muslims thought, however.

Is it useful for one group to be able to ridicule another? I can see if people wanted to condemn a group's religious practice - if that practice was hateful or violent producing. But it seems like people are just defending "in your face" religious insults.

I don't think most Americans know about this International religious hate law. Most of the arguments seem to be made on the basis of their interpretation of US law.

[Yollam]

112. Mohammed was just a man.

According to their cult (I'm not defaming Islam - I consider all organized religions to be cults), he was a prophet. He should still be fair game for ridicule, as should Jesus, Siddhartha, Moses, and God himself. If they don't like it. they shouldn't look at it. If they don't like freedom of expression, they should not live in western societies. My heart goes out to Palestinians and Iraqis when I see them weeping over family members who have been senselessly killed by IDF or US forces, but I find it so tedious when Islamic fundies start burning things and going apeshit over a stupid cartoon or other perceived slight. This is the civilized world. Make your own cartoon ridiculing fat stupid Western people if you want, but freaking grow up.

The day I start censoring myself to avoid offending some religio-nut is the day they put me in the ground, because I've said it before a thousand times and will continue to say it. ALL religion is 100% crapola.

[genie_weenie]

115. no you're wrong

My religion is the right one, X named prophet proclaimed as he stood upon the corpses of the millions slaughtered in the name of god X.

But I have missed the point, Mohammed is the *true prophet*, that's why he's exempted, sometimes when you want freedoms you have to remember to curb them.

[Coexist]

122. Have you seen the South Park episode when there is a crowd

at the gates of hell. And as the Emcee welcomes them to hell, various people start in with questions like, "But I am a devout Methodist (or whatever) why am I here?"

The emcee says, to all of them who ask, "Oh, sorry, yours is the wrong religion".

Finally someone asks what religion the "winner" is and he says, "Um..Mormoms, Mormons was the right answer" like Alex Trebec.

It was funny. And meant to be a joke - like Coulter's, right?! So don't flame me.

[SupplySideLiberal]

128. That was funny

...and it hit a great point.

It often occurs to me that religiously bigoted people are not even fighting over God. They're fighting over syllables. Shiva, Alla, Jehovah... get a few consonants wrong and you are deserving of eternal torture.

[ucmike]

121. more religious fervor and self-righteousness

i don't see a whole lot of difference between this issue and american christians yelling about "book of daniel" or anything else they protest. if your belief system is so strong that you feel it should be the guiding principle for everyone and everything than you should feel secure that it can withstand a little criticism from the outside. basically, they "doth protest too much".

with the exception of the "bomb turban" cartoon they were mostly innocent. the "bomb turban" cartoon might offend some people, but maybe it should inspire some dialogue about why part of the world feels that way, rightly or wrongly. angry crowds and cries of "blasphemy" don't do much to support their claims that they are being misrepresented.

it's silly and their reaction only serves to back up the stereotypes.

[Coexist]

123. On a serious note - I agree - I am very torn.

My gut says, Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech.

I don't know. It is an issue to ponder over the next few days.

(on edit: Screw it - I can't find a way to limit Freedom of Speech over that - if Ann Coulter can ask for someone to poison a Supreme Court Justice, and I have to say that fits in with Freedom of Speech - these cartoons certainly do too. Sigh. I don't agree with what they did - But I have to defend their right to say it).

[Ksec]

124. Searching for a sense of humor in Islam

They really need to learn to laugh at themselves. Its a real weakness when you cannot take a joke.

The guys who cant take a joke are always the ones picked on the most. Get a clue Islam.

[Cleita]

127. That's a tough one.

Although, I believe in respecting other people's culture and beliefs, I also believe they shouldn't be imposed on me. So it seems that a good Muslim would not show Muhammed in an image, but am I bound by their rules?

I think so if I were in an enclave that was Muslim, like a mosque or even a nation where the majority of believers are Muslim. However, in a European Christian nation, how binding is this respect for another's beliefs? And, do they have a right to demand it?

I mean how many times have Muslims burned our American flag for the news' cameras to make a statement. Most Americans are horrified by this spectacle of foreign nationals descrating one of our symbols. Yet, they have a right to do it especially on their own home ground.

Now as a matter of meeting people half way and in the interest of peace, and as a gesture of goodwill, maybe they shouldn't depict an image of Muhammed as a display of respect for Moslems.

Like I said this is a hard one.

[genie_weenie]

131. it is plain

obviously since we (insert offended group here) do not agree with the current *scandal* we should resort to censorship. If only everyone believed exactly as I do the world would be great, maybe I should start forcing people to agree with me, I'll start with speeches and protests and move on to murder, pillage and rape and eventually everyone we believe as I do and we will have no problems! Hurray!

Or I could slaughter the whole world but me, then there would be no disharmony... Wait do I agree with myself on that one? On no I might be schizophrenic and so might I?

[WildEyedLiberal]

139. Are you similarly "torn" when fundies bomb abortion clinics?

After all, the act of abortion is gravely and seriously offensive to the faith of these Christian fundamentalists. Are you also torn over their decision to resort to violence to protest something that grievously offends their religion?

If this were a newspaper printing offensive cartoons of Jesus, would fundamentalist Christians be justified in bombing, looting, and killing in protest? Would all countries with a majority of Christian citizens be right if they severed diplomatic relations with the nation whose free press allowed such cartoons to be printed even if it is obvious the cartoons have nothing to do with said governments?

This is the stupidest "scandal" in a long time, and it's complete bollocks that every free-thinking person isn't decrying the Muslim countries for their religious fanaticism and their attempts to suppress dissent - not to mention their implicit encouragement of violence and thuggery in an attempt to browbeat the rest of the world into obeying their religious laws.

They are more than free to boycott that which offends them, and to ask for an apology. But what has happened is nothing short of a nuclear overreaction which displays the ugly tendency of fundamentalists to claim "persecution" over anything that does not portray them in a 100% positive light.

[JI7]

141. the Christ artwork involving urine

south park did something on Catholics recently which many on DU loved. there was that christ artwork using urine a few years ago.

people shouldn't be forced to live according to other's religious standards.

i come from a Hindu family. i would say the same about those who want to ban the eating of beef or other meat in the name of their religion.

what right does anyone have to demand someone be punished over this ?