Do we have the right to piss off the Muslims?

[Swede]

Do we? I cannot imagine wanting to kill someone over a cartoon. We should know that we can do it. We cannot understand it. Let's not do it.

[Bluzmann57]

1. Do the Muslims have the right to piss us off?

No.

[CrazyForKucinich]

40. People have the right to do anything they please

There are consequences for certain actions however. The right questions are not being asked.

[seriousstan]

2. Yes we do.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[derby378]

5. Danish newspaper ran cartoons depicting Mohammed

It's against Islamic law to have any depictions of Mohammed that feature his face. That newspaper apparently never got the memo.

Now the Danish embassy in Lebanon is burning as a result of mob violence.

That's the quick and dirty version...

[judy]

7. I have a question, since I haven't seen the cartoons...

Do the cartoons have captions that explicitely say that this is the Prophet Mohammed being depicted?

Does anyone know?

[derby378]

9. Here's a couple of the cartoons

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=329242&mesg_id=329242

There's at least one more, but I don't have a link for it yet.

[Burning Water]

20. Muslim offending cartoons.

Here's a website that's got all twelve of them.

Be warned, I stumbled on this while searching for the cartoons and am not familiar with this website, the Brussels Journal, but it seems fairly conservative.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698

[judy]

50. Well, from these examples, how can we say that they are

actually depicting the Prophet Mohammed, as opposed to any bearded Muslim stereotype?
The cartoons are mean, and meant to ridicule Islamic extremism, and probably serve to increase Western paranoia.
But I did not see any captions saying :"this is Mohammed himself". Were there any?

[Nightflurry]

45. But..

It's against Christian law to kill and steal from your neighbor. The US didn't get that memo apparantly. Why aren't Christians fundamentalist Christians burning down our embassies?

Actually... this exposes something. Fundamentalist Islam actually IS Islam in it's most extreme, it follows the Islamic laws. Fundamentalist Christianity is not remotely following Christian law... I think we should find a new name for the latter that doesn't involve the word Christ.

[Serenades]

4. Why not?

Yup.

Why should we walk on eggshells around Muslims? If something needs to be said it should be as is the case for anyone (or group) else.

[BuyingThyme]

6. This small group of crazies has assured an eternal comic strip.

[Silverhair]

8. Do the Muslims have the right to get angry over the slightest of ...

...offenses? Really, a cartoon is worth nothing more than a LTTE. It isn't worth rioting over. The Muslims are extremely, greatly, overreacting.

Do the Muslims have the right to such extreme over reaction?

[Swede]

10. Off course not.

Let's stop this.

[Bridget Burke]

53. Rioting & destruction are wrong but anger is not.

And it is not "The" Muslims. Some are angry, some are rioting. Most are doing neither.

[PretzelWarrior]

11. Yes. Doing so is counterproductive if that is the aim...

but if something I say or do p!sses off a Muslim, I'd like to know why. If it was lack of sensitivity that was avoidable, I'll look into modifying behavior and possibly apologizing.

If they are sensitive about something and I find them narrow minded, that is just something they'll have to deal with.

[kisstheman]

36. Pissing off anyone is a right of anyone

regardless of race, etc ...

This is a stupid argument. Islam is not a sacred lamb. It is a believe system just like anything else. They must develop a thick hide or no one will take them seriously.

Why?

[gulfcoastliberal]

12. Seems like a lot of people have no problem pissing off Jews & Christians

Why is Islam off limits?

Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion and yet many on the left hate Jews and Israel - which has been the homeland of Jews for thousands of years - well before Mohammed came along.

Get over yourself.

[Swede]

14. G I am asking the same questiion.

Our side is more enlightened maybe,not to get so reactionary over a little thing.

[Burning Water]

18. I agree with everything you said, except.

No to Gore, No to Kerry, No to Hillary.

Clark's the man. Gore and Kerry are yesterday's news, and Hillary doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the election. The Repukes would even bother to program their Diebolds.

[entanglement]

27. Nonsense

Nice way to accuse 'the left' of anti-semitism, an old ploy.
OTOH, the US is doubly careful to be PC when it comes to Jews / Israel

[entanglement]

28. PS to above: I mean PC in a positive sense

/Regret bad choice of words, but it's too late to edit :banghead:

[ReaderSushi]

29. Homeland for thousnds of years?

Would you redraw all political boundaries to what they were thousands of years ago?
And you seem to equate disagreeing with Israel as also hating Jews, not realy fair is it?

[Demoiselle]

13. Sure we have the "right"...but

I'm not sure it's right. I don't know what pushing stereotypes does for our ability to talk to each other. I guess people have the "right"
to crack bad jokes and draw insulting pictures that portray Jews, Blacks, Asians, or any other definable group in a bigoted way. too. A long time ago American Nazis won the right to march in Skokie, Illinois through a community with a large number of holocaust survivors and relatives... Didn't mean it was right.
That said, it really frightens me that so many people in the world can be incited to violence so quickly about something like this. That ain't "right" either.
Sigh.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

15. I don't have the "right" to piss off anybody...

... because "rights" are parochial and external by definition.

I do, however, have an urge/drive/perversion to piss off people that I want to piss off. "Rights" are granted... me being an asshole is a choice.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

16. Maybe. Depends on the context

I don't think that anyone should be pissing others without a valid reason.

But thats what is ironic about their plight.

The more Islamics complain (and in some case threaten or commit violence) about cartoons of Mohammed, the more news worthy it becomes....

and the more news worthy it becomes, the angrier they get and the cycle continues.

I can see both sides.

BUT, preference has to go to freedom of speech, over the freedom to not be pissed off.

The best thing islamics can do is to ignore it.

[Ready4Change]

23. There is no "right to not be pissed off."

You cannot govern that. You cannot mandate that nor legislate that. And if you tried, it would be too likely to be abused.

Know what I'm pissed off at? People who have forgotten that the men who wrote our constitution knew what a tall task it was they were handing to us.

Anyone wants freedom. That's easy. But it takes BRAVERY to allow someone ELSE freedom. To grant someone ELSE the right to insult YOUR god, YOUR self, YOUR family, YOUR nation. It takes bravery to accept the fact that, if you protect their freedoms, then you protect your own as well.

Cowards fear criticism. Cowards seek armor for their own thin skins. Cowards lack faith in their beliefs, tremble at the thought of being faced with conflicting opinions, doubt their dogmas can stand up to challenges.

[Yupster]

24. I believe the best thing that could happen

would be foru hundreds more of these cartoons to be published continuously.

Pretty soon the protestors will see that their prophet and religion and lives can get along just fine even with a cartoon in a newspaper.

Then when they get offended they'd learn to not look, or change the channel, or turn the radio off, or walk out of the movie, or cancel the subscription. Of course these are things that most of us learned when we were around eight.

[Gullvann]

39. You make a good point.

Muslims in Norway has acted very restrained. There has not even been a public demonstration.

Scratch that. There was one yesterday outside the Norwegian parliament.

FOR freedom of speech and against the violent reaction elsewhere.

[beyurslf]

17. Yes. We have the right to freely express our ideas, even if those

ideas (or cartoons) piss off some people.

[Yupster]

26. Did Larry Flynt have a right to publish a cartoon

about Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother?

I think most of us said not just yes, but hell yes because the press needs to be free even when offensive.

Falwell thought he went too far so he sued him. Flynt won in court and they each went on with their lives.

[beyurslf]

33. Point well made. Had Falwell rioted in the streets, would we feel

differently, or just ask why hasn't the crazy old man been arrested yet?

[beyurslf]

34. Point well made. Had Falwell rioted in the streets, would we feel

differently, or just ask why hasn't the crazy old man been arrested yet?

[Ready4Change]

19. One may express ones beliefs, and others may express their DISbelief.

Due to the wide variety of belief systems in our world, all beliefs will be offended at some point or another. One can be offended, but one cannot demand someone elses silence.

Why fear the critic? If a belief system is the one, true truth, then all critics will be proven false. Let the critics rail. Let them scream. Time will tell.

[Az_lefty]

21. Yes, we have a right to piss of whomever we please...

just as they have pissed us off.

[JI7]

22. 2 guys having sex with each other pisses many of them

but i'm sure guys don'thave sex with each other for the purpose of pissing off muslims or anyone else.

[Carla in Ca]

25. This Kos Diary is interesting...

Muslim Cartoon Controversy: What the Media Isn't Telling You

snip...

12 cartoons were published in the Danish newspaper Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, which you can see here. Some were very bland, others seem to be unquestionably offensive. Yet these cartons were published on September 30, 2005. What the traditional media has failed to explain is why the protests are occuring now.

snip...



So what triggered this? Well it takes a blog to explain it. What CNN and the other traditional media failed to tell you is that the thousand gallons of fuel added to the fire of outrage came from none other than our old pals Saudi Arabia.

While it was a minor side story in the western press, the most important of Muslim religious festivals recently took place in Saudi Arabia - called the Hajj. Every able-bodied Muslim is obligated to make a pilgrimage once in their lifetime to Mecca, which is in modern-day Saudi Arabia. This pilgrimage can be done at any time of the year but most pilgrims arrive during the Muslim month known as Dhu al-Hijjah, which follows a lunar calendar that does not exactly match the western Gregorian calendar.

The most recent Hajj occurred during the first half of January 2006, precisely when the "outrage" over the Danish cartoons began in earnest. There were a number of stampedes, called "tragedies" in the press, during the Hajj which killed several hundred pilgrims. I say "tragedies" in quotation marks because there have been similar "tragedies" during the Hajj and each time, the Saudi government promises to improve security and facilitation of movement to avoid these. Over 251 pilgrims were killed during the 2004 Hajj alone in the same area as the one that killed 350 pilgrims in 2006. These were not unavoidable accidents, they were the results of poor planning by the Saudi government.

More <http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/5/13149/60748>

[obxhead]

30. In a way we do and

they have the same right to piss us off with their cartoons as well.

[NuttyFluffers]

31. no "right" to bad manners or spastic hypersensitivity

you can do it, but it's not a 100% blanket "right." the way i was taught what elements comprised a right was: ability, power, immunity, priviledge. anyone can, and most have the power, but to expect the immunity and priviledge no matter what you express, or how you express it - no.

it depends on the sovereign nation in discussion, but often there are limits to freedom of expression, and repurcussion/redress for verbal assault, instigation, or whatever. likewise there are limits to the reaction. the "insulted" party (in quotes due to nature of subjectivity) are often limited in their counter-expression, and repurcussion/redress can kick in depending on what rules have been broken.

on an etiquette/humane level bad manners, from both sides, are abhorrent. but often the tactful do not make a scene until things are getting out of control, and then the proper authorities are called in.

just one nice link to get an idea of how i'm seeing this discussion pertaining to "right." perhaps it might be in a different context, but this is how i currently am taking it:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q167.htm

i'm still curious if there are different cartoons circulating in the chaos that are just fanning the flames. it seems too... convenient the way everything is happening. i'm getting the impression (which could be wrong) that RW groups in europe, from anti-immigration to pro-imperialists/neo-colonialists, and RW groups in middle east, from religious fundamentalists trying to usurp power to status quo hard right ruling elites enjoying the riots 'cause it takes the focus off of them. too many of the "bad guys" are benefitting from all of this chaos, and that's why i have a nagging suspicion that there was a method to this madness.

[Behind the Aegis]

32. Very well stated!

:applause:

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[High Plains]

37. Yes, but not an obligation.

[Skittles]

38. if your faith is so fragile it is shattered by a g.d. cartoon

that is just pitiful

[Raine]

41. I agree

are they so unsure of their religion that something so innoculous is a threat?!? Any belief that can't stand up against a cartoon must not be of much comfort or support.

[Skittles]

42. it's pure brain-washing

it is mind-boggling

[Warren DeMontague]

43. Yes, lets make a list of the pet peeves of all the world's fundamentalists

and agree to not do ANY of them.

Or, here's another idea; How about Fundamentalists- of all stripes- figure out the Fundamental difference between the statements "I don't eat pork because of my religion" and "YOU don't eat pork because of my religion"

[patcox2]

48. Beautiful.

I absolutely agree. Your example nutshells it.

Just as I reject american christian fundamentalists who want to create a theocracy here, I reject muslim fundamentalists and their efforts to hold onto the theocracy that destroyed their civilization. The muslims were more advanced than the europeans, once, they destroyed the Byzantine empire and conquered Spain and the balkans, threatening all of europe. They preserved classic literature, invented many important mathematical and astronomical concepts, began the science of chemistry. They had a rich literature as well.

Then there arose islamic fundamentalism and it destroyed their civilization, in just the way christian fundamentalism will destroy ours if it is allowed to.

It will get no respect nor sensitivity from me, it is a malignancy which produces closed minds and hatred and is antithetical to civilization.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

44. I think the questions need to be phrased carefully.

"Having a right" to do something is not a well-defined phrase. A right to do something without what happening? A right bestowed by whom? I'd ask the following questions, and answer them as below.


Q: "Should newspapers be allowed by the government to print cartoons of Mohammed?"

A: Yes, definately, freedom of speech is an important part of a democracy.


Q: "Should Muslims be allowed by the government to protest if newspapers print cartoons of Mohammed?"

A: Yes, definately, freedom to protest is an important part of a democracy.


Q: "Should Muslims have the right to make death threats or burn embassies because of these cartoons?"

A: No, those are illegal.


Q: "Were the newspapers right to print those cartoons?"

A: This is a harder one. My answer is yes. They clearly were offensive, at a fairly sensitive time, but I think the right to insult Islam is an important one, and the degree of furore indicates that it needs to be defended. If there hadn't been such dramatic protests, I'd have felt that the cartoons were gratuituous, and as such the offence wasn't justified and so they probably shouldn't have been printed, but given that the right to insult Islam does seem to be under attack I think it needs to be exercised - in as token a way as possible, to avoid causing more offence than necessary - to stand up for it.


Q: "Are muslims justified in protesting about these cartoons?"

A: Debatable. As I've said above, I think the cartoons were justified, but they were also clearly intended to provoke, and I think if Muslims find that provocative and choose to protest about it that's fair enough. I do think that their protests should not be given in to, however.

[Cobalt Violet]

46. For now we do.

:kick:

[NaturalHigh]

47. Do they have the right to piss me off?

Do they have the right to piss off Jews and Christians? If so, then they need to unwad their panties.

[MadHound]

49. Yes, we do, and contrarywise

Muslims have the right to non-violently protest about such perceived outrage. Most of them are doing so non violently. It is the actions of a few that are causing the problems. Of course our media is taking the actions of these few and using it to smear the entirety. Don't fall for the spin.

[genie_weenie]

51. Of course we can, but that's not really the issue

This has been manufactured by corrupt Islamic governments, trying to capitalize on the tension between the Islamic community and the world.

[Lars39]

52. From what I understand, the same newspaper made the decision

a few years ago to not publish cartoons that depicted christ &/or christians in an inflammatory way.
Why did they feel that it was OK to publish these, especially given that for all intents and purposes,
the US is on a "crusade" to conquer the Middle East, complete with missionaries on the ground from almost the beginning of the invasion?