Offended by a cartoon showing the Prophet Muhammed wearing a bomb on his head, radical Muslims are destroying things and threatening to blow shit up.
That makes sense.
I also like how these same extremists are demanding that the Danish government apologize for something printed by an independent newspaper.
Oh. My. God. This bothers me so much, I'm going to use color.
I think that if someone drew a cartoon of Jesus Christ nailed to the cross, where the vertical plank of the crucifix was an ICBM, I would take that as a commentary on how George Bush uses religion as a motivation for war... on how RADICALS ARE FUCKING UP THE MESSAGE.
That all I have to say. Love to all.
17 comments:
It is so strange I have not posted about it.
How can people see this and think democracy and free speech are desired by everyone?
You should read the article i have wrote regarding the caricatures used in the Danish papers.
Obviously, the cartoons were meant to cause offense rather to bring humor.
alchemistglobetrekker.blogspot.com/
Thank you for using color! Your sentiments are what I have found most feel...sigh
Calvin -
Actually, the cartoons were meant to cause thinking rather than humor.
Not to mention, I think you're starting a bit late in the argument. How much hate speech have we seen from Muslim extremists? A bit more offensive than a cartoon.
And besides: Your religion isn't mine. You might not eat pork, but I love bacon. You may not "draw God," but I can.
Your blaspheme isn't mine.
Hi, thanks for ur opinions. I never said leader of irans are legitimate, rather the way the comic strips have been presented is offensive.
Remember, Christianity once considered such stuff blasphemous. Liberal takes time. Certainly, i do not support how dictators take charge, neither do i support using such comic strips indiscriminatively.
Muslims are opposed to any images or depictions of the Prophet, whether they are serious, or humorous. This stems from a strong aversion to paganism, and the worship of idols. Jews and early
Christians shared this aversion - a reaction to the Roman and Greek pagans who had ruled over them in the ancient world.
Early Muslims were so averse to idols that their art became all about patterns and colors, and they refused to even depict a flower in a painting. (Byzantine art was so influential, that the word, which once described the most successful Muslim empire in history, is now synonimous with works of art that rely on pattern rather than depiction.)
Modern Muslims seem to misunderstand the reasons for not depicting their Prophet. They appear to have elevated these cartoons to idols, and are now defending their idols from ridicule. Undoubtedly there are Islamic scholars arguing against the uproar, but their voices will never be heard above the din of the unschooled masses.
'Course, I could be wrong.
Calvin: It's kind of hard to decide when cartoons are being "indiscriminate." In this case, though, clearly not.
Mark: Nice comment. I think the din, though, is often caused by the "schooled" masses, too.
PD: Huh? That doesn't even make sense.
I find it remarkable that Denmark, of all places, is in the middle of this bruhaha. (speaking as a Dane myself, that's just not typical behavior... lol)
Hang in the hun! These things come in threes and I counted three so its over. This too will pass and tomorrow will be a new day...a Superbowl day - with a huge tv (with a stain).
And before I get clobbered, I'd like to say I wasn't trying to make light of the situation. Not at all. Just heard that the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus have been torched...
'Modern' Muslums will have to learn that if they want to enter 'modern society' there will come times they will be offended.
The world is not going to kowtow to their every whim. They WILL have to suck it up or go back to the desert, live in tents and pretend it is the eighth century.
prying1, I suppose if I were to draw a cartoon as offensive as having a dog bump uglies with your wife or daughter, and send it out for all the world to see, you'd probably say "Awww, gee whiz! It's freedom of speech! Ain't nothing I'm gonna do about that! I applaud you for practising your right!". Uh-huh. Right.
anonymous:
I doubt he'd be thrilled. In fact, he'd probably be furious. But would he firebomb the person's house?
Rich, I'm forwarding a comment from my blog. I hope it makes sense of what i'm trying to convey to you.
If the NY Post were to run a cartoon tomorrow depicting Jesus Christ having sex with Elton John as a commentary of homosexuality in the Catholic Church, would Catholics around the world go "Gee whiz, never mind that, it's freedom of speech?". Somehow, I don't think so. There's satire, the cartoons were meant to offend, and offend they did. There's a good article in the Times regarding this here... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ art...2025511,00.html
Joe | 02.06.06 - 2:28 am | #
If the NY Post ran that cartoon, there would be outrage. But nobody would FIREBOMB the NY Post's offices. And NOBODY would demand that BUSH apologize for the post.
You seem to think that outrage and violence are interchangable. And frankly, it's laughable.
And, as an American Catholic, I would *defend* the *right* of the Post to print such offensive material, while doing my best to have people boycott the paper.
In other words, who gives a shit if the cartoons were meant to offend, as you complain in your blog. I find your whole argument offensive, and you have every right to make it.
Man.
rich/championable
In no way do I agree with some of the overboard reaction going on in the Muslim world. And I don't agree either that the Danish government should apologise or be held accountable for what was printed by a right-wing newspaper.
I however disagree when you comment that the cartoons were meant to cause thinking rather than humour. What exactly are the publishers trying to say here? What do they want their readers to think about when they see a picture of the representation of the founder of a relligion with a bomb in his turban?
If the cartoon would have depicted Osama bin Laden instead of their prophet, then by all means, it would have been relevant. But to instead depict the founder of the relligion? That's just taking machismo to the extreme, and was surely planted there as nothing more than an outright insult to Islam and Muslims the world over.
Nothing is printed in newspapers that don't reflect the agenda of the editors. And surely in this case, that agenda was meant to offend and belittle an entire relligion and the followers of that relligion. And they do so hiding behind the shield of free speech.
From what I understand, Muslims take their relligion very seriously, and incorporate it in all aspects of their lives. And the ultimate insult to them would be to insult their prophets and God. Of course, they'd be unhappy. I'm sure the editors of the newspapers were aware of that. They surely were smart enough to realise that to print something as incendiary as that would get an equally fiery response. It was a calculated move to inflame, then say, "Hey, that's free speech buddy! If you can't take it than that's too bad for you!"
Right so that's free speech. But if someone were to go to your house and shout insults to your mother or your daughters, would you just let him get away with it? I dunno about you, but I'd likely kick his freaking ass and then some. Maybe it's just because I'm a violent barbaric guy, but then again, I've been brought up to defend the honour of my family at all costs and take shit from nobody but what do I know?
Some of these Muslims are just doing varying degrees of that. Just like how some Americans did when protesting the Vietnam war...burning flags and having violent clashes with the police. I don't agree with what they did, but I can understand why they did it.
That's all I have to say on this topic. Peace.
p/s - prying1, hopefully I didn't offend you by my comments. No offense intended, I was just trying to illustrate my point.
Post a Comment