New Content
- 12/03/2008 - 22:10
- 11/29/2008 - 18:46
- 11/29/2008 - 18:44
- 11/28/2008 - 21:59
- 11/28/2008 - 21:33
Random Image
Latest Interviews
Stephen Romano
by Joshua Jabcuga
George Gallo
by Christopher Stipp
Clark Gregg
by Dennis Widmyer
Amy Hempel
by Rob Hart
Search For Books
Our Social Networks
The Danish Cartoons of Mohammed
The [I][COLOR=Red]rage [/COLOR][/I]for these cartoons keeps expanding. Like to know what you guys think.
[URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4670370.stm]Muhammad cartoon row intensifies [/URL]
[URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4709380.stm]Iran paper's Holocaust cartoons [/URL]
The attachment is a miniature of the all the cartoons together and how the they appeared when first published. The link takes you to bigger versions.
[URL=http://weblog.theviewfromthecore.com/2006_02/ind_005226.html]The Danish Cartoons of Mohammed[/URL]
.jpg "Dr.Jekyll8Mr.Hyde's picture")
Well, I was looking for more commits on what you think, but maybe people are too nervous to talk about it. I'm for freedom of speech and expression, which is applicable in developed countries, and I wish it was for the entire world, but that's not realistic. I do believe it is the right of countries that pride themselves on artistic freedom to view the cartoons and make their own opinions. On the other hand it's not my place to criticize the outrage in the middle east where religion and politics are such an integral part of society.
I'm fascinated with the conflict that has come about, that between freedom of expression and mutual respect for another culture's belief system. That's what I'm trying to get at. And I don't know if there's an answer.
Thank you for posting them. No paper over here has had the stones to do so yet. No one wants to be the first. Probably the Ney York Times will lead then the others will follow. I think the non violent Muslims should get over it and move on. Much like 'freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion', freedom of speech does not mean freedom from being offended. I think the hyprocrocies needed to be pointed out. The world has been very accomodating to immigrant Muslims, and they have as yet, been silent about the crimes committed in Mohammed's name.
[SIGPIC][IMG]http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/McMuddle/song-of-south.jpg[/IMG][/SIGPIC]
[QUOTE=McMuddle]Thank you for posting them. No paper over here has had the stones to do so yet. No one wants to be the first. Probably the Ney York Times will lead then the others will follow. [COLOR=Orange]I think the non violent Muslims should get over it and move on. Much like 'freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion', freedom of speech does not mean freedom from being offended. I think the hyprocrocies needed to be pointed out. The world has been very accomodating to immigrant Muslims, and they have as yet, been silent about the crimes committed in Mohammed's name[/COLOR].[/QUOTE]
Those are great points.....:) A lot falls on fundamentalism. Many educated Muslims have committed on the rather benign nature of the cartoons (although I don’t really think [I]benign [/I]is the right word, but I’ve heard it used again and again, i guess it works if they mean [I]gentle[/I], because honestly I thought they would be more explicit). Conversely extremists form blood fountains from pinpricks.
I think the idea with the holocaust pictures is an appropriate juxtaposition. If Die Welt or any of the other big papers ever dared to publish a cartoon of Jesus as a Nazi officer who shoots down a row of Jews, people wouldn't be talking about freedon of speech. I mean, in Germany it's forbidden to publish or even draw the Nazi Cross, or even to do the Nazi greeting sign Hail Hitler in public. It's forbidden to have the letter combination SS on your licence plate. It's forbidden to publish or even own Mein Kampf by Hitler. It's forbidden to sing some of the former verses of the German Hymn that start with Deutschland, Deutschland über alles!
Western governments know what effect those cartoons will have on the world, but they still do it. Why? To celebrate freedom of speech? To entertain readers with funny cartoons? Or maybe to boost sales because now everyone would like to see those cartoons?
I just want to see a cartoon of Jesus raping a Jew in a KZ uniform saying something witty for the occasion published in a major Western newspaper and then I'll accpet the arguement about freedom of speech.
While I am all for freedom of speech and freedom of religion, neither one of those constitues killing or violence. If someone decided to draw a cartoon of my mom who is my fucking hero and it pissed me off to the point of no return I highly doubt I could go and throw a bomb on the house of the asshole who drew it and get away with it. Nothing constitues violence like that. Nothing.
Boycotts, outrage, so on so forth, I understand, and I would understand the argument that Stoyan makes even though it is not the same thing, because you see, if this was during the Inquisition I can understand, but I don't see what Jesus and the Halocaust have in common here. On the other hand, I can see what Muhammad and violence in the Middle East have to do with each other.
On a final note though. If you use your religious dogma to defend your holy war and the West decides to make fun of you for it, going and blowing up embassies is a really immature way to handle the issue. The problem here is that they are sitting around bitching about how the West made fun of them so now they have to Jihad the place. Nice guys. Really nice.
Nothing is static...
Why would you own Mein Kampf? Did you like it?
And about the Jesus cartoons, well, Jesus is not such a touchy issue for the west as Mohammed is for the muslims. That's why I think the holocaust example is appropriate. And even though you could probably find cartoons on that topic too, and I've heard many jokes about it, those would never be published in major newspapers and magazines.
In fact, if freedom of speech should allow newspapers to vulgarly satirize a whole religion, why am I not allowed to go to a police officer and tell him to go fuck his mom? Because it's an insult, a verbal attack. And just like a police officer would beat me up and/or arrest me, no one should be surprised that many muslims are angry and want an apology or revenge. And of course, if I unsult a lawer, he'll sue me; if I insult some mafia boss he'll have me beat up. And especially the latter will definitely not listen to my freedom of speech arguement.
I can't speak for America since I've never been there, but, for example, in Germany the holocaust is pretty big an issue still, or at least the memory thereof. A bit like slavery in America maybe. I can't say this for sure, but I doubt that the The New York Times would publish a cartoon of a KKK hooded guy with a baseball bat saying "that nigger better do a homerun."
[QUOTE]And about the Jesus cartoons, well, Jesus is not such a touchy issue for the west as Mohammed is for the muslims. [/QUOTE]
OK, I guess I could see that, but still.
[QUOTE]no one should be surprised that many muslims are angry and want an apology or revenge.[/QUOTE]
I'm not surprised, but then again, I'm one of those people who cares about my ass rather than that of someone elses.
A fucking cartoon does not constitute murder. One can be pissed, but without bombs.
Nothing is static...
I don't think anyone brought up the point that just to [I]draw[/I] Mohammed is considered sacriligious. Islam forbids any representation of Mohammed be it a statue, painting etc. So besides the insulting nature of the cartoon, there is also the insult of major sacrilege. Like major.
I obviously treasure free speech, but this is a difficult one for me. I'm kind of siding on the argument that these are really hate speech, meant to insult and inflame sensibilities.
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
Freedom of speech is all good, but has to balanced with civic and social responsibility.
It's not as if this was printed once, but it was reprinted (probably dozens of times) all across Europe. In a private, subscription magazine it wouldnt have been such a big deal (i would hope), but this was the public, sold on the street corner newspaper and thats fucked up. I'm not a pc, save everyone's feelings kind of person, but that shit is just wrong.
Mirka: Any idea why they have that law? is it some kind of false worship prevention idea?
The paper that printed the cartoons is a right-wing rag that used the excuse of "testing to see whether Muslim immigration has affected free speech in Denmark".
In a way, that's quite a legitimate idea, but in reality it's just a masked way of showing their disdain for Islamic communities living in Denmark. The reason (along with the time it took to apologise) the government is tarred with the same brush and Danish goods are being boycotted around the world is the paper is seen as a kind of mirror for the pretty right-wing, anti-immigration government, a bit like the Telegraph is seen as the paper for the Tories in the UK.
The thing is - on an artistic level, the cartoons are shit. They'd be rejected by most papers on the grounds of poor quality. So that makes them purely inflammatory, targeted at something that was clearly going to offend to the maximum - and piss off both extremist and moderate Muslims.
As someone said before it's therefore like printing a cartoon of Hitler shagging Anne Frank, Jesus fucking a child - basically something as offensive as possible. Sure, the religious aspect makes it more complicated, but the motive is just as nasty.
And - this paper actually rejected cartoons that mocked Jesus a couple of years before!
As probably everyone on this site does, I believe in free speech. I scoffed at the Christians who picketed the BBC when they decided to screen "Jerry Springer the Opera", which shows Jesus in a nappy, but is also hilarious and written to show the hypocrisy of religion etc. As an atheist I think it's pretty stupid that you should care about a drawing in the first place.
But people do care. I still defend the right for the paper to print this crap, but the point is that a sensitive editor with no barbed racist motive wouldn't have done so.
The reactions of militant extremists is a different matter. Some people want to inflame this situation and portray it as a clash of civilisations for their own twisted ends.
[QUOTE=DHAoH]
It's not as if this was printed once, but it was reprinted (probably dozens of times) all across Europe.[/QUOTE]
Actually, it hasn't been reproduced that many times. A French satirical mag was going to run them, then pulled them, and a few German and Norwegian papers ran them, but generally - they're not appearing in too many papers. Basically because of the fall-out from the Danish fiasco. The interesting thing is there's probably a more compelling reason to publish them now on the grounds of public interest (it is a crucial part of a big news story after all) than there was in the first place. So perhaps the free-speech experiment might have proved something after all...
I have to imagine that a great number of violent reacters have now been photographed and documented, and have made 'the list'. Hmmm, a ruse to get them to expose themselves?
[SIGPIC][IMG]http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/McMuddle/song-of-south.jpg[/IMG][/SIGPIC]
[QUOTE=mirka]I don't think anyone brought up the point that just to [I]draw[/I] Mohammed is considered sacriligious. Islam forbids any representation of Mohammed be it a statue, painting etc. So besides the insulting nature of the cartoon, there is also the insult of major sacrilege. Like major.
I obviously treasure free speech, but this is a difficult one for me. I'm kind of siding on the argument that these are really hate speech, meant to insult and inflame sensibilities.[/QUOTE]
Mirka, good catch...:) I forgot about the infidelity of depicting Mohammed. In that case
the cartoons are mockery. I don't know if I'd go as far to call it [I]hate [/I]speech but they’re blatant disrespect.
DHAoH:
Mohammad wanted to eliminate polytheism and the false worshiping of idols and symbols, like those in Hindu and Christian faith. And although Christian faith is monotheistic it still uses symbols as a focus. It ties into material goods representing mortal comfort and greed, when focus should be on the hereafter (mind you in [COLOR=Lime]heaven [/COLOR]there's an abundance of worldly pleasures and [I][B]virgins[/B][/I], gotta have those). Here’s a spot from the encyclopedia place:
[I]As the ranks of Muhammad's followers swelled, he became a threat to the local tribes and the rulers of the city. Their wealth, after all, rested on the Kaaba, a sacred house of idols and the focal point of Meccan religious life. If they threw out their idols, as Muhammad preached, there would be no more pilgrims, no more trade, and no more wealth. Muhammad’s denunciation of polytheism was especially offensive to his own tribe, the Quraysh, as they were the guardians of the Ka'aba.[/I]
[QUOTE=McMuddle]I have to imagine that a great number of violent reacters have now been photographed and documented, and have made 'the list'. Hmmm, a ruse to get them to expose themselves?[/QUOTE]
There was outrage in the UK when a group of demonstrators appeared outside the Danish embassy with banners that read things like "Behead those who mock Islam", chanting things such as "Britain you will pay 7/7 on its way" and even with one fucker dressed as a suicide bomber.
The question that was quite rightly asked was: why weren't these people arrested straight away for incitement to murder and religious hatred?
Apparently, the police didn't want to inflame the situation, but they have moved to arrest many of the people photographed. It seems a fair bet to assume that there might be some kind of connections, however tenuous, with extremist and terrorist networks...
[QUOTE=stoyan]Why would you own Mein Kampf? Did you like it?
.[/QUOTE]
Sorry stoyan, I didn't mean to ignore the question. Probably a different thread entirely would better suit the discussion. Has anyone else actually read it? I bought my copy after seeing the Waltons episode with all the mountainfolk burning books and Johnboy trying to talk some sense into them and reading a few passages. I do not agree with the insanity of Adolf or what he did. His writings though are interesting in as they are some insight into how he assimilated information, questioned his own beliefs, educated himself and came to his conclusions. Some of his political and historical observations are incredibly accurate today. He was insane, not stupid.
Edit: sorry it has been 30 years since that episode of the Waltons, here is the actual overview of the episode.
[URL=http://www.the-waltons.com/alex/firstorm.html]http://www.the-waltons.com/alex/firstorm.html[/URL]
[SIGPIC][IMG]http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/McMuddle/song-of-south.jpg[/IMG][/SIGPIC]
[QUOTE=stoyan]It's forbidden to publish or even own Mein Kampf by Hitler.[/QUOTE]
just out of curiosity, what is the punishment for owning a copy of this ? is it basically like a ticket and they confiscate the book or is it you get thrown into a dungeon for 3 years and they take the book ?
As God as my witness...I thought turkeys could fly...
[QUOTE=nathaniel parker]just out of curiosity, what is the punishment for owning a copy of this ? is it basically like a ticket and they confiscate the book or is it you get thrown into a dungeon for 3 years and they take the book ?[/QUOTE]
distributing and buying it is illegal in germany. there is no law against owning it.
no, i don´t have a copy. i read short excerpts while studying and i´m not really interested in the whole thing. being german still means constantly dealing with these horrible things happening 50 years ago. and being honest i´m really fed up with it.
I'm from Norway, and these violent muslims have attacked Norway, too. Looting Norwegian businesses in their countries, burning our flag, and demanding apologies from everyone. Governments from Islamic countries are demanding (was it Pakistan? I can't remember) official apologies from our government. Deaththreats are flying all over the place, directed against anyone who prints the cartoons. How Norway got into this is a Christian paper "Magazinet", reprinted the cartoons. From them, it was just a ploy to polarize popular attitude toward muslims, disguised as a demonstration of freedom of speech. Even so, freedom of speech should guarantee their right to do so. It is not a reason to kill, threat people, burn flags and demand apologies from whole countries.
Because this would set a precedent.
Every time from now on, if the muslims (those who have done wrong here, not every muslim) get their way by demonstrating, using threats and violence and looting businesses and demanding heartfelt apologies right and left, they will keep doing this. In the name of their god. And with all due respect, that is such bullshit. I don't belive the Koran endorses this (though I don't know) and if it does, then it deserves no heed. If the Koran can make the Norwegian government act according to its principles, then religion is making politics, and that is unacceptable.
The demonstrations should be ignored. They WANT to make as big a fuss as possible, so no one will ever draw the prophet again. But the reality they live in - the Earth at present - cannot make exceptions for them any more than for a western country trying to force a middle eastern country (its press, media and government) to live by its beliefs. Because they're beliefs. They differ from person to person, culture to culture. This should be obvious, and is to most people, but it still needs to be said, because what is happening here is a demonstration of ignorance and ill will. Yes, the cartoons here in Norway were meant to antagonise, but not only do they have a right to antagonise - they got their way. Now, these muslims are proving to the world that their barbaric and backwards ways are in fact very much alive and thriving, and a threat to people who demand the right to free press and free speech. How much it's valid to blame them, in light of their background etc is another matter. Thfere is a reason why their belief is so important to them, and that belief should be respected. But not at the cost of free speech, or a person's or a nation's safety.
The violations done by muslims outweigh by far those made by anyone else. It's gone too far now. And if that ends in them getting exactly what they want, by those means, then that is injustice.
What should be done is help countries evolve. Not by changing or regulating their religion in any way, but by facilitating economic growth, cultural awareness, etc. Extreme conditions empower phenomena like religions. Take those away, I think we'd be well on our way towards a better future for all of us.
This turned out all high and mighty, but whatever. I think it's about right.
An Italian taught me to drink tea.
i find it very interesting that it seems like its only ever muslims that get violent over artwork
sure the christian folk get all antsy too and they'll bomb an abortion clinic at will but i dont remember any of em getting out of hand when that guy had the crucifix in urine a few years ago
As God as my witness...I thought turkeys could fly...
Here is some interesting reading: [URL=http://www.memri.org/antisemitism.html]http://www.memri.org/antisemitism.html[/URL]
[SIGPIC][IMG]http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/McMuddle/song-of-south.jpg[/IMG][/SIGPIC]
Special Dispatch Series - No. 1088 - Antisemitism Documentation Project, February 7, 2006
Hizbullah Leader Nasrallah: Implementing Khomeini's Fatwa against Salman Rushdie Would Have Prevented Current Insults to Prophet Muhammad
as crazy as i've always knew they were this takes the cake
As God as my witness...I thought turkeys could fly...
as for the cartoons, i noticed theyre by several different artists
were these cartoons something thats been going on for awhile or did they just pop em all out one day ? if its the later, sounds like a concentrated effort to induce outrage on the newspapers part
[url]http://weblog.theviewfromthecore.com/TheBlogFromTheCore20060202d.jpg[/url]
also, this is probably one of the greatest cartoons to sum up this whole waste of time and energy
As God as my witness...I thought turkeys could fly...
[QUOTE=Riddlegimp]
Actually, it hasn't been reproduced that many times. A French satirical mag was going to run them, then pulled them, and a few German and Norwegian papers ran them, but generally - they're not appearing in too many papers. Basically because of the fall-out from the Danish fiasco. The interesting thing is there's probably a more compelling reason to publish them now on the grounds of public interest (it is a crucial part of a big news story after all) than there was in the first place. So perhaps the free-speech experiment might have proved something after all...[/QUOTE]
Aight, not a dozen, but 7. My bad. Thats what I get from the BBC:
[CENTER][I]Newspapers across Europe have reprinted caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad to show support for a Danish paper whose cartoons have sparked Muslim outrage.
Seven publications in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain all carried some of the drawings. [/I][/CENTER]
[QUOTE=scerpica]distributing and buying it is illegal in germany. there is no law against owning it.[/QUOTE]
My wrong, sorry. Didn't know you could own it.
About a fee - I don't know what it would be. But it's not only the legal consequences. The whole world war two anti-semitism hitler holocaust thing is a touchy issue still. Just like you wouldn't say nigger too light-heartedly in America, here you can't really go around quoting Mein Kampf. Or so I think.
[QUOTE=stoyan]My wrong, sorry. Didn't know you could own it.
About a fee - I don't know what it would be. But it's not only the legal consequences. The whole world war two anti-semitism hitler holocaust thing is a touchy issue still. Just like you wouldn't say nigger too light-heartedly in America, here you can't really go around quoting Mein Kampf. Or so I think.[/QUOTE]
I wonder what the Cult's muslims think about this. There are muslims here, right?
[QUOTE=stoyan]I wonder what the Cult's muslims think about this. There are muslims here, right?[/QUOTE]
i was thinking the same thing, that i wish i knew some level headed muslims in my own little circle to ask them what they think about all this
i don't think theres any professing muslims here
As God as my witness...I thought turkeys could fly...
[QUOTE=nathaniel parker]i was thinking the same thing, that i wish i knew some level headed muslims in my own little circle to ask them what they think about all this
i don't think theres any professing muslims here[/QUOTE]
Would be nice to get a muslim's POV on how muslims justify what has happened and is happening. Or better: why. Would be easier to understand the situation, maybe.
An Italian taught me to drink tea.
I am still combing through refences to depictions of Muhammad. I have found several references to the Qur'an not specifically forbidding it and many references to the Ottoman Empire creating many minatures, though often obscurring the face.
[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Drawings]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Drawings[/URL]
[URL=http://answering-islam.org/Muhammad/pictures.html]http://answering-islam.org/Muhammad/pictures.html[/URL]
[SIGPIC][IMG]http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/McMuddle/song-of-south.jpg[/IMG][/SIGPIC]
[QUOTE=stoyan]Just like you wouldn't say nigger too light-heartedly in America, here you can't really go around quoting Mein Kampf. Or so I think.[/QUOTE]
Well, it's when one says "nigger" [I]too seriously[/I] that's not a good idea. But I know what you mean.
I've a copy of [B]Mein Kampf[/B]. Wenknee & I were talking around New Years about the book. She'd been in a bookstore & saw a copy that was all decked-out, nice & fancy looking. A few days later, I saw the editions in a bookstore near here (Alabama). Hardback, jet black dust jackets, a goddam red ribbon, Iron Cross on the cover, everything. A creepily well-ordained edition. But yes, I have owned a copy since I was 11 or so. Hitler (& Hess) were good at making age-old beliefs sound fresh and relevant, and a country that had been ground under boot heels after WWI bought into its mythological-socio-bullshit. But I can't really see anything in it that is worthy of [I]outlawing[/I]. I understand Germany's feeling (and thus laws) towards the book, but it seems more like knee-jerk-guilt than anything else.
I started to post in this thread yesterday (I wrote a few paragraphs, then was distracted & ended up posting a lot about drugs, surprise, surprise), and everything I had to say then has since been said. I'm pretty much with Mirka & others that think the Danes in this case were trying to cause a scene of sorts. I don't think I'd go so far as to put it down as "hate speech" or not, but it's definitely intentionally inflammatory. Riddlegimp's post puts it into perspective as far as the "reasons" the Danes had for publishing them in the first place. And I think the "Holocaust cartoons contest" is an interesting return-fire. Better than lobbing off heads (and we know how much those crazy Muslims dig that shit, har-har-har). Still, people [I]have[/I] been killed in responsive acts over these drawings... So I take it that Germany at least will not be legally allowed to publish the cartoons as the Muslims have challanged. And yes, a Muslim's thoughts would be very interesting right about now.
i believe in freedom of speach but it has it´s limits. i do not agree with the mocking of someones beliefs. i'm a Christian and it hurts me a lot to see some of the disrespect people have had towards my faith so i can totally understand where muslims are coming from. of course it doesn't justify the violence... but i wouldn't mind throwing a brick or two through some cartoonist's windows after seeing some pretty offensive drawings of Christ.
it was a really stupid thing to do... who ever did it should apollogize, then the muslims should apollogize and everybody could just go back to the shitty little lives we live.
antes ser rico e saudavel do que pobre e doente
ya know, even though i know what the thread is about
i still got that one or two seconds every time i read the thread title and think theres some cartoonist named Mohammed that drew some danish cartoons
As God as my witness...I thought turkeys could fly...
Apologizing isn't going to make a damn bit of difference. I think they should still do it. but, it's not going to help anything. anyone that might blow shit up, or shoot people or spread anthrax ( not the band) or whatever is not going to give a flying monkey nut about an apology.
I hate it for europe, i think you all are alright, but at least its europe and not america for a few weeks. dutch newspapers and british soldiers taking the heat for the next week or so.
[QUOTE=DHAoH]Apologizing isn't going to make a damn bit of difference. I think they should still do it. but, it's not going to help anything. anyone that might blow shit up, or shoot people or spread anthrax ( not the band) or whatever is not going to give a flying monkey nut about an apology.
I hate it for europe, i think you all are alright, but at least its europe and not america for a few weeks. dutch newspapers and british soldiers taking the heat for the next week or so.[/QUOTE]
This offends the average muslim about as much as getting mooned when doing group prayers. As in not very much.
Yes, now it's Europe. Great. Remember who started it? I'm all for some Mohammed graffiti on the White House just to relocate the focus of attention again ;)
On another note, my personal feelings towards this whole issue together with everything else that's been going on in the Middle East for the past years is just a huge pain in the ass. It's fucking annoying and scary. I really hate it. I hate the idea that they are capable of starting massive riots, killing their own people, over some [I]cartoons[/I], dammit. And all this wouldn't be too troubling if various Western governments weren't selling weapons to them, and if they weren't able to leave their country. Every second some whacko suicider might decide to blow himself up in the Subway I'm on just because he saw my post on the internet or something.
I just want to add here that this has nothing to do with being muslim or from Iraq or whatever. Some of my best friends at school are from India, Afganistan, Israel etc etc.
I'm not pissed off at the Iraqis, I'm pissed of at the whole situation and maybe this isn't the right place to vent about this but I just felt like sharing because if you think about it, the whole political situation right now can be described as either ridiculous or pre-Word-War-Three.
I had no idea about the ban on [I]Mein Kampf[/I].
A good friend of mine is an English photographer, she travels Europe and Britain constantly, she wrote me an e-mail on the topic so I'm throwing it in.
[QUOTE]OK, yes huge disturbances about this and inevitable that the powder keg would blow when the torch paper was lit. If it weren’t this it would have been something else. Although I cant comment on the content I can certainly understand the frustration of a people who seem to be besieged from all sides.
True that all people need to take themselves less seriously and religion by it's very nature sets itself up for ridicule, but when people feel vulnerable and beaten down they will inevitably rise up. Cant blame them really.
Cant respond to Mein Kampf, certainly it was banned some places but my memory of this is hazy. It's available in this country now. We have a facaist party of course the BNP (British Nationist Party) - they're a bunch of w.....s. Any Brit will be able to fill in the blanks. The reason I mention this is because they are Pseudo Nazis, have hi-jacked our national flag, stir up so much racial hatred and although they are shitheads, they're dangerous shitheads and, it you want the truth, they go down as one of the reasons for my escape.
You cannot underestimate the strenght of racial divide in this country now - it's really appalling and something I keep encountering in my work. It's all the same old story - if things aren't going well financially/socially/career etc (or you're just bloody lazy) then find someone to blame. The easiest are those who look different and those we dont care to understand. sorry, it just makes me sick and if I carry on with this rant much longer the computer may explode, so enough for now.
Well, hey, let's look for the good in people, there are too many others ready to seek the bad.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=McMuddle]Thank you for posting them. No paper over here has had the stones to do so yet. No one wants to be the first. Probably the Ney York Times will lead then the others will follow. I think the non violent Muslims should get over it and move on. Much like 'freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion', freedom of speech does not mean freedom from being offended. I think the hyprocrocies needed to be pointed out. The world has been very accomodating to immigrant Muslims, and they have as yet, been silent about the crimes committed in Mohammed's name.[/QUOTE]
The Philadelphia Inquirer did.
[url]http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/13850717.htm[/url]
Here's the [i]really[/i] weird thing though.
There were a shit-ton of pictures of the protest if the Philadelphia Inquirer I found on Google Image Search 2 days ago... that are now gone. *POOF* Like they never were.
Perhaps some of you more savvy net-heads can find them.
I hate the feeling of news vanishing.
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/Lazlosdead/completeLazloSig.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=stoyan]Is it "wankers"?[/QUOTE]
How the hell should i know? Do i look British?:D
Here's an audio update. It's live in the next half hour and archived after it airs so you can listen to it whenever you want.
[URL=http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2006/02/20060217_b_main.asp]Colonial Afterburn: cartoon riots: Novelist Kiran Desai [/URL]
[I]The Muslims world's "cartoon riots" have continued this week. More protesters are dead in Pakistan, foreign company buildings have gone up in flames, and madrassas have been emptying their students into the streets to rage.
Novelist Kiran Desai looks on with a knowing eye. Her first novel, "Hullabaloo in the Guava Orchard," was a funny romp through village life in India. Her new novel, "The Inheritance of Loss," is still good humored, but far darker.[/I]
A Political Cartoonists views that I stumbled across this morning:
Two Kinds of Offensive Cartoonists
By Daryl Cagle
Crowds fill the streets in the Middle East, demanding the execution of the Danish cartoonists who drew caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. Bounties for the murder of the cartoonists have been offered by Muslim extremists and have been trumpeted in the press as the poor cartoonists live in hiding, under 24-hour police protection.
Why did the Danish cartoonists draw the cartoons? To test the limits of press freedom? To show disrespect for Islam? Because a Danish author couldn't find an illustrator for his book about Muhammad? No, the Danish cartoonists drew "caricatures" of Muhammad because a Danish newspaper, the Jyllands-Posten, hired them and paid them $73 each, along with the promise that the cartoonists would get their names and photos in the local newspaper.
The cartoonists knew they were being hired to draw provocative cartoons accompanying an article about the limits on press freedom, but they had no idea that they would be the tiny spark that lit a huge bomb in the Muslim world. (If they had known, they certainly wouldn't have done the drawings in exchange for getting their photos in the newspaper.)
Some of the cartoonists even made fun of the assignment they were given; one of the offending cartoons shows a man looking at a police line-up who asks, "How can I identify Muhammad if I don't know what he looks like?" Another offending cartoon shows a turban-wearing cartoonist holding his drawing of a stick-figure Muhammad while an orange, labeled "PR Stunt," drops into his turban. (Dropping an orange refers to a Danish idiom and expresses the cartoonist's disdain for his assignment.)
As condemnation rains down on the Danish cartoonists an important distinction is lost - the difference between cartoonists who are illustrators and political cartoonists.
I'm a political cartoonist; I draw cartoons that convey my opinions. Anyone who sees my cartoons will know what I think on a wide range of issues. Political cartoonists are journalists, just like columnists we decide for ourselves what we want to say, and we are responsible for what we say. Editors don't tell political cartoonists what to say (although editors sometimes stop us from saying things that are offensive).
The Danish cartoonists are illustrators; they are given assignments by clients who pay them for their work. Illustrators draw what they are hired to draw. No one can look at the work of an illustrator and discern what the illustrator's opinions are. Illustrators usually draw pictures that go with an author's words; they might be creative and inject their own ideas, but still they are working at the direction of a client. The Muhammad cartoons are not political cartoons, they are illustrations drawn to accompany a newspaper article about press limits, an issue that arose because an author couldn't find an illustrator for his book about Muhammad.
The Danish Muhammad cartoons are broadly - and wrongly - described as political cartoons by pundits and politicians who don't understand the difference between one kind of cartoonist and another. The "political cartoon" label unfairly condemns the Danish cartoonists, none of whom would have chosen, on their own, to express any opinion about Islam, press freedom or the Prophet Muhammad.
The perception of the Danish Muhammad cartoons as "political cartoons" is chilling to real political cartoonists who are suddenly perceived as ticking time-bombs that can explode at any time. Editors, who were already uncomfortable reining-in their unwieldy, bomb-throwing cartoonists, are now more timid than ever.
Everyone asks me why I don't draw Muhammad in a political cartoon - am I afraid to give offense or am I afraid for my own safety? I'll draw whatever I want; I'll be offensive if I want to be, but I want my cartoons to effectively convey my opinion, and my opinion about the Danish Muhammad cartoons issue is that the violent response to the cartoons is wrong and is far out of proportion to the provocation. If I were to draw a cartoon depicting Muhammad now, the only message the cartoon would convey is: "Hey, look at me, I can offend you too." That is not what I choose to say.
[URL=http://cagle.com/news/blog/]http://cagle.com/news/blog/[/URL]
[SIGPIC][IMG]http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/McMuddle/song-of-south.jpg[/IMG][/SIGPIC]
[QUOTE]The Danish cartoonists are illustrators; they are given assignments by clients who pay them for their work. Illustrators draw what they are hired to draw. [/QUOTE]
What kills me is that the cartoonists were commissioned. All of this was a setup. The Illustrators put their reputations and lives on the line for something they didn't even believe in. They were simply doing a job. In that sense I hold the paper responsible for employee malevolence (or whatever the term is). The paper’s intention was to start shit, and they put their Illustrators on the chopping block.:crucified
Forgot to mention there [COLOR=Lime]McMuddle[/COLOR], your avatar makes me happy, kind of like Daley’s bunny.:)
I heard that in Iran, "Danish pastries" shall henceforth be known as "Roses of the Prophet Mohamed." Suddenly, I have a hankering for some liberty cabbage.
I'm just gonna accept my loneliness, and I'm gonna go to an even darker place of nothingness, from an even farther more extreme nothingness on my own!
[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde]What kills me is that the cartoonists were commissioned. All of this was a setup. The Illustrators put their reputations and lives on the line for something they didn't even believe in. They were simply doing a job. In that sense I hold the paper responsible for employee malevolence (or whatever the term is). The paper’s intention was to start shit, and they put their Illustrators on the chopping block.:crucified
Forgot to mention there [COLOR=Lime]McMuddle[/COLOR], your avatar makes me happy, kind of like Daley’s bunny.:)[/QUOTE]
how were the illustrators not responsible ?
if the illustrators didnt believe in what they were commisioned to draw, why didnt they just refuse? is anybody implying that they were forced to draw these cartoons? i havent read this yet. the only thing i can decipher from this whole saga is that some uninspiring illistrators decided to draw racist cartoons to push the envelope of freedom of speech without having the foresight of the shitstorm it would create (or maybe they did).
muslims have recently had to endure invasions into afghanistan and iraq, laws introduced in the "west" directed at their demographic although described as "anti terrorist" not "anti muslim", and the media providing us all with a continual feed of anti muslim reterict to imply that all terrorists wear turbans and originate from sandy deserts.
i do not find it surprising, though do not condone the actions taken by the minority of muslims that have reacted to the drawings through violence.
it is easy to imagine that muslims countrys, some that are particularly poor, would inhabit people whose religious beliefs are linked markedly greater to their identity, and therefore would find greater offense, than someone of similar of different religious beliefs living in a more prosperous nation (like my own country australia, america, britain etc). its also not surprising that the closer you get to the "holy land" the more passionate people get towards their repective religion. passion which is sometimes displayed by improper means.
these reactions of violence to these cartoons are not simply from the cartoons alone but the continued perception by people in the muslim community that the media is showing a blatant disrepect and bias towards their religion. (this is what im lead to believe from various radio shows that have actually involved repected muslim community members)
but seriously how can anybody find these drawings offensive theyre just so stupid and racist.
[FONT="Arial Black"]rock over london, rock on chicago[/FONT]
[QUOTE=nathaniel parker]i find it very interesting that it seems like its only ever muslims that get violent over artwork
sure the christian folk get all antsy too and they'll bomb an abortion clinic at will but i dont remember any of em getting out of hand when that guy had the crucifix in urine a few years ago[/QUOTE]
i think its intrinsically linked to quality of lifestyle and the perception of how people think their religion is seen in the general scheme of the world.
sure every religion is going to have extremists. but muslims have experienced sustained media scrutiny in recent history and this, i imagine, would explain for the high level of muslim discomfort. christians might have the occasion attack on their religion, but it pales into relation to that which muslims have experienced.
[FONT="Arial Black"]rock over london, rock on chicago[/FONT]
Copyright 2008 - A Writers Cult, LLC
Joined: 2004-09-27
From: