Moslem world outrage over cartoons of prophet

by Hellrider 27 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Hellrider

  Personally, I am a bit divided on the issue. Yes, I support the principle of free speech (of course), but I wonder: Is freedom of speech really "unlimited"? It`s very easy for us in the western world to say "look, moslems, we have no problem in printing derogatory pictures of Jesus, and christianity is our religion, so you should really accept it if we show pictures of Mohammad riding a pig (or whatever)". But is it really taht easy? It`s still, even in our western, civilised world, just been a few decades since we would have been equally outraged if someone had printed a drawing of Jesus anally impaled by a cross (or whatever). Many countries (my own included) still has a blasphemy-paragraph in the law (emotions are reflected in law, usually on the issue of how long a person should be incarsarated for the various crimes, but also, in some cases, such as the laws on blasphemy, as part of the actual law). This law hasn`t been used in a while, but it`s only been a few decades since the last time. And really, what about things we, in the western world, find outrageous and disgusting? Imagine this: Let`s say someone printed drawings of someone engaging in pedophile activity (I know this is an extreme, disgusting example, but it`s often in extreme examples we find the truth about yourself). I`m not talking about photographs (that would be photos of an actual illegal act, and would be prosecuted by law) - I`m just talking about drawings. Drawings of someone raping a child. Now, would you consider this to fall under the right to freedom and speech and freedom of press?

  On the other hand...if we don`t accept words, images, etc, that we find to be utterly, horribly (as in my example above), fucking disgusting (!!!) - can we really claim to have free speech? And if we can`t, then what really is the difference between ourselves and the moslem world?
• 

  bebu

  I think it matters a bit as to the motivation or message one is giving in a cartoon. BTW, the links to the cartoons do not work now, so I'm just going by descriptions...

  If the message is simply to debase someone, just to cause an angry reaction, I find that a problem. The cartoons of Mohammed, esp with a bomb-style turban, express a point: Mohammed modeled violence and we can see it still in many of his followers today...

  Regardless, whoever draws the cartoons knows that s/he is inviting some intense debate and upset. I think the cartoonists want the readers to reevaluate their religious practices, but this is a real gamble. It's even dangerous... so is it worth it? I tend to think so, hard as it is.

  Anyway, I think the difference has to do with "what's the message". Simply to insult? Or to make a point?

  bebu
• 

  funkyderek

  Hellrider:

  It`s very easy for us in the western world to say "look, moslems, we have no problem in printing derogatory pictures of Jesus, and christianity is our religion, so you should really accept it if we show pictures of Mohammad riding a pig (or whatever)".

  That's not what I say. Christianity is not my religion. To me, neither Jesus nor Mohammed deserve any more respect than Winnie-the-Pooh.

  Many countries (my own included) still has a blasphemy-paragraph in the law (emotions are reflected in law, usually on the issue of how long a person should be incarsarated for the various crimes, but also, in some cases, such as the laws on blasphemy, as part of the actual law).

  Blasphemy is a victimless crime, and laws against it should be abolished (as with all victimless crimes).

  Drawings of someone raping a child. Now, would you consider this to fall under the right to freedom and speech and freedom of press?

  Yes. It would not normally be the sort of thing that should appear in a newspaper, because its contents would be inappropriate for children and deeply shocking to most adults. I would have no problem with such pictures being displayed in specialty publications though.

  On the other hand...if we don`t accept words, images, etc, that we find to be utterly, horribly (as in my example above), fucking disgusting (!!!) - can we really claim to have free speech? And if we can`t, then what really is the difference between ourselves and the moslem world?

  There's no need to protect the right to express a completely inoffensive idea. It's only ideas that are considered offensive or shocking that need to be protected. We must protect the right to say that Islam is a backward, primitive religion as well as the right of Muslims to say that anyone who doesn't behave in accordance with their silly little book will be punished by Allah. Neither side has the right to harm the other because of expressing these beliefs.
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Oh yeah, I forgot, depicting Mohammed is strictly forbidden by the high moral standards of islam. But then, isnt' burning national flags of another country and issuing death threats immoral too?

  exactly
• 

  Ellie

  They need to grow a thicker skin, pretty soon it'll be impossible to smile without someone complaining.
• 

  Pole

  Hellrider,
  
  As with many other superficial dillemmas, the criterion to be considered is: who gets hurt and why? In this case, the only "victims" are the few deluded morons setting fire to Danish flags who risk burning their hands in the process. And they are the victims of religious/cultural delusions. That's my honest opinion, at least.
  
  As for showing respect for other religions, many muslims are not the best example of avoiding the terrible crime of blasphemy, so they should at least learn to accept the fact that a Danish newspaper published in Denmark can publish whatever is considered largely acceptable in Danish culture.
  
  "Punishing the newspaper" as some muslims demand would be ridiculous. The eshetic aspect of your argument non est disputandum.
  
  Pole
• 

  Hellrider

  FunkyDerek and Pole, ok, good thoughts. As for the editor of the norwegian newspaper that also printed these pictures (a very small christian newspaper) - he is a christian who has defended the blasphemy-paragraph in the past...but of course, only when the issue was things that are blasphemous towards christianity... What a turd.
• 

  VM44

  Removed so as to not provoked a worldwide outrage. --VM44
• 

  greendawn

  The religious moslems are a fanatical primitive minded lot, they got the inspiration for their religion from the judeo christian writings (nothing original) and think they are superior and that they deserve to conquer the world.
• 

  Buster

  We should encourage all the press of the western world to follow suit. I see two possible outcomes:

  1. The loony muslims that are soooo offended will get desensitized,

  OR

  2. The loony muslims that are soooo offended will get provoked enough to do something stupid against western press. That may galvanize the western world against the loony muslims that are soooo offended.