The German "Political" Cartoons

[RPankn]

[RPankn]

This is typical of the debate going on at DU over these cartoons. Not surprisingly, the Likud shills and DLCers are trying to portray what, to me, is clear race baiting and religious bigotry meant to inflame, and is no different than Nazi propaganda, as a "freedom of speech" issue. Such an argument is nonsense because European jurisprudence has never recognized such a right; thus, this is not how they would frame the issue.

BushOut06 (815 posts) Thu Feb-02-06 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. They react the same way RWers do when it's their icon being portrayed
God forbid anyone portray Jesus with anything but the most reverence. The only difference is that in Islam, I believe it's offensive merely portraying Mohammed, whether it's done offensively or not.

Squatch (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-02-06 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. The "same way"?
How many armed Christian fundamentalist hoardes do you see closing foreign embassies in this country?

Lost-in-FL (560 posts) Thu Feb-02-06 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I see nothing wrong with this page.
As inmature as I might sound I have to say that Mohammed pic was funny as hell... I just wonder why they are so mad about it besides the fact he looks like Osama.

Leopolds Ghost (389 posts) Fri Feb-03-06 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #32
43. Some of them are mild, none of them are particularly amusing
But that's true of most European political cartoons. They are about the same as New Yorker cartoons -- mostly pretentious and unfunny, with some ham-fisted axe-grinding thrown in for good measure.

I think the very idea of portraying Mohammed in a "sympathetic" light is ridiculous when the (non-expert, European) cartoonist has no idea what Mohammed looks like. So even the non-negative portrayals resort to stereotype. I'd have the same complaint about (non-political) attempts to portray the "real" Jesus (if it weren't for the fact that there is already a stereotypical image of Jesus.)

I think it would be interesting if the US papers commissioned a series of cartoons showing Jesus. Half would be "positive" portraying Jesus as a light-skinned, noble Aryan; the other half, from the more militantly secular cartoonists, would be "negative" portraying Jesus as a hairy, sweaty Slav/Jew archetype straight out of the 1930s to show how unworthy of worship he is... This nuts is hard-wired in our brains, it ain't just about religion, it's about millenia of tribal warfare.

Leopolds Ghost (389 posts) Fri Feb-03-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Except for the "bar / no bar" cartoon. THAT would be hilarious
and memorable, with the women's eyes uncovered, if it weren't for the fact that Mohammed is portrayed as a stereotypical hook-nosed Semite wielding a dagger straight out of Gunga Din.

Leopolds Ghost (389 posts) Fri Feb-03-06 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
39. WTF makes you think he looks like Osama? In this case secularism = racism
They are using secularism as a front for right wing, CHRISTIAN fascist ideology. Read the articles by the Danish RWers who sponsored the contest. This is no different than the 1880s - 1930s when Jews and Slavs were portrayed as heavily bearded, greasy, bomb-throwing anarchists. It is something in the water that leads people to continually reinvent the same stereotypes, just like Americans stopped believing in leprechauns and started believing in little green men, according to many psychiatrists. They need a supernatural enemy to survive, mentally.

cali (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-02-06 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. No. That's not the point.
It really is about a free press. It's about a secular culture not giving in to religious belief. Are the cartoons racists? That's debateable. I don't mean that snidely. It's about ideas, good, bad, offensive, uplifting, banal. Certainly the cartoons are offensive, but kidnapping and violence because you're offended is not justifiable. Life in a secular, multicultural world, with a free press, comes with the risk that you're going to offended.

Hatalles (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-02-06 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #14
23. Freedom of speech, I disagree.
Edited on Thu Feb-02-06 10:33 PM by Hatalles

Have we lost all decency and respect for others? These cartoons are attacks. Were the NY Times to publish these cartoons (http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/cartoons/homepage.htm ) there'd be outrage as well. The "free speech" card is the same argument that is used to attack minorities in the US today. I wonder what would happen if the Times published a series of cartoons on their front page of civil rights leaders like MLK and Rosa Parks in leapord skins, big lips, bones through their noses, the whole Jim Crow caricature... all in the name of "freedom of speech" -- because they can.

Leopolds Ghost (389 posts) Fri Feb-03-06 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #27
42. Some naive people think this is about ALL religion should be DISrespected
In a "secular state" that has "freedom of speech".

In other words many secularists here and in Europe believe "free speech" and "freedom of religion" is incompatible with religious expression.

They're wrong, of course. The Jyllands Post and the people flogging
these cartoons as some sort of artistically meaningless, latter-day
"Piss Christ" are doing so out of conservative, religious sentiment --
"Denmark for the Danes."

They would be the first people to object to freedom of expression on the part of Muslims in Denmark or France: That's dangerous and would embolden those savages. Give a ---- an inch and he'll take a mile is what they believe. It's purely an effort to foster animosity. The folks rallying around these cartoons as if they need to be defended are doing so to score points with the conservative anti-semitic, anti-black and anti-immigrant "Christian" Europeans -- not because they want to institute the First Amendment in the EU. They do not.

Marie26 (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-03-06 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #42
72. Why are all the pictures of Turks?
Edited on Fri Feb-03-06 10:53 PM by Marie26

I think it's telling that all the cartoons seem to depict Turkish or Moorish culture. Complete w/the stereotypical costumes, knives, turbans, buildings. While actual Muslim terrorism mostly arises in the Arab world. This seems to show the underlying racism behind these cartoons, IMO. Turks might not be a majority of terrorists, but they are a sizeable majority of the Muslim immigrants in Europe. And Denmark recently had riots as well by young Muslim immigrants. When asked to illustrate the "threat posed to the West" by Muslims, the Danish cartoonists instinctively chose the imagery of the resented Turkish immigrants; not the image of terrorism. These cartoons seem to really be about an anti-immigrant agenda rather than an anti-Islamic one. And the group's "contest" seems to be more about finding the scariest depiction of Muslim immigrants rather than furthering a real debate on the issue.

It's interesting how differently some simple cartoons can be interpreted - the Danes see it as anti-immigrant issue, the Islamic world sees it as an anti-Muhammad issue, Americans see it as an anti-free speech issue. Each culture frames the debate completely differently, based on its own values & experiences. No wonder no one can agree.

Thanks for your post - you've completely changed my mind on this issue. I saw it at first as a free-speech issue (how dare they try to censor this!), and also saw the cartoons as some sort of comment on terrorism (But not one single cartoon depicts a terrorist). Most people on this thread have framed the debate in the same way (seeing the cartoons as Bin Laden, etc). That's cause if you ask an American about the "Muslim threat", a terrorist springs to mind. If you ask a Danish person about the "Muslim threat," a Turkish immigrant springs to mind. You're right that the intent was probably to deride poor Muslim immigrants in Denmark. But Americans perceive this whole controversy through a 9/11 filter - my own first paragraph just assumed that the cartoons must be depicting terrorists w/o any evidence. It's a little scary how much our culture influences our perception of things w/o us even knowing it. OK, I'll stop rambling now.

Tierra_y_Libertad (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-03-06 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #14
28. Was the Volkisher Beobachter just being "secular" when it attacked Jews?
Complete with cartoons.

Leopolds Ghost (389 posts) Fri Feb-03-06 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
40. "It's about a ssecular culture not giving in to religious belief."
1. YOu're wrong. Freedom of religion does not mean elimination of religion. YOu're spouting a hateful, anti-religious ideology.

2. YOu're mistaken. The "Jyllands Post" that commissioned this cartoon series did it to "illustrate the threat post by Islam to the West" according to the website above.

3. While not all the cartoons are offensive, most are, and that disturbs me to realize there is such a depth of Anti-Semitism still in the nordic countries.

4. You're also mistaken because the defenders of the cartoon series are NOT going on about FREE SPEECH. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IN EUROPE. Unfortunately. There is only Ideology, and the Ideology they CLAIM to be attacking by commissioning this series of Cartoons is the "secular Western governments" who seek accommodation with Islamic people living in Europe. They want to restore Denmark to old-fashioned Christian values of the 1930s... They are part of an assimilationist movement that essentially is saying "Convert or Leave".
In France, it masquerades as a violently secularist movement that seeks to deprive Black North Africans of jobs and prohibit women from wearing headscarves in public. I'm sure you would approve, no? Again, THEY DON'T GIVE A nuts ABOUT FREE SPEECH. EVERY LIBERAL SECULARIST I'VE MET, OR READ, FROM EUROPE QUESTION'S AMERICA'S "obsession" with freedom of offensive speech. They just don't "get it". They want to fight speech that is offensive to THEM with speech that the other side will find equally offensive, i.e. racial attacks, just like in India/Pakistan and the Middle East, where speech is also limited to that which favors one side over the other.

5. In AMERICA, this nuts would be considered offensive and the paper's "right" to publish it would be a NON-ISSUE. Of COURSE they have the right to be offensive in America. Western European governments are not disseminating this nuts in an effort to prove the cartoonists have "free speech". They're doing it to endorse the message -- Muslims Not Welcome In Europe. If the majority disagreed with the message it would be banned with not one howl of protest by militant secularists in Europe, because, again, they don't give a nuts about our Bill of Rights. In England they don't give a nuts about the right to privacy either... although they have retained some aspects of common law rights that are equivalent to Bill of Rights. Rest of Europe doesn't have that. Show me one country in Europe where the people, not the state, has ultimate sovereignty. That is not the way the law is set up in France, or England.

tabasco (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-02-06 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. Oh yes, and all of us should be more open-minded about threats
of violence, insane jihads, murder, and religious fanatics telling us what we can print in our newspapers.

There is a world of difference between a controversial cartoon and threats of and actual violence. If you can't see that, I'm afraid we live on different planets.

tabasco (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-03-06 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. That's baloney.
Edited on Fri Feb-03-06 11:44 AM by tabasco

The only ones threatening violence against other people are the ones protesting the cartoon.

Is Denmark ready to launch a pogrom because of the cartoons?

What do you consider more likely today?:

1) An anti-Islamic pogrom in Denmark, or,

2) A terrorist strike on a newspaper that printed a controversial cartoon.

I think you need to analyze who are the real bad guys in this scenario.

A newspaper has a right to print controversial material. An offended party does not have the right to do violence because of that material.

Leopolds Ghost (389 posts) Fri Feb-03-06 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #30
41. Both are likely.
In France, Muslims (i.e. black citizens of France -- the overwhelming portion of the Black population is Muslim and vice versa) are essentially restricted to ghettoes by unspoken hiring and housing covenants in that militantly "colorblind" state. (Black) women are prohibited from wearing headscarves in school. They are essentially taught that their religion is false in the name of "secularism", much as happened to the Ghost Dancers in the American West.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT FREE SPEECH. IT IS AN ATTEMPT BY A CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVE NEWSPAPER TO PROVOKE A VIOLENT REACTION IN ORDER TO SELL PAPERS.

impeachdubya (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-03-06 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
56. Oh, Bullnuts. This isn't about "racism". It's about out-of-control fundies

Who don't understand that outside reality doesn't need to be sanitized to match what is inside THEIR heads.

When the religious right in this country burns books and works for censorship, we roundly condemn them. At least, I do. I don't see why Muslim fundamentalists get a free pass for going ape-nuts, inciting violence, threatening publishers, etc. over depictions of Muhammad.

It's distressing that some members of the so-called 'left' seem so willing to embrace censorship when they're talking about things that they, personally, find offensive. And don't you dare try to drag Nazi Germany into this- I had relatives who died in the camps, and I was maybe 10 miles from Skokie when the Nazis marched there in the 1970s. Guess what? They have the right to free speech, even when their speech is offensive and noxious. The way to PREVENT totalitarian abuses is to protect free speech- ALL of it- particularly the most offensive and noxious parts. Do I think Ann Coulter is a dangerous, raving lunatic who needs to stop doing meth, or whatever drug it is that is eating big holes in her brain? Yes. But censoring her isn't the answer. ANSWERING her with speech of our own is the answer.

Even if these things were 'racist', and I'm not sure they are- the proper response would be to counter them with education about Islam. By starting riots, issuing fatwahs and death threats, and intimidating publishers, I don't think Islam is putting its best face forward.. (Just like every time Pat Robertson gets on tv and opens his mouth, I don't think "Christianity" is putting its best face forward)


It's very simple, but some folks still don't get it. Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Don't like porn? Don't look at it. Think making graven images of the prophet is a sin? THEN DON'T DRAW PICTURES OF THE PROPHET.

But I think the planet would be in much better shape if folks everywhere would stop trying to enforce THEIR PERSONAL Belief System (or BS, for short) on everyone else.

Leopolds Ghost (389 posts) Fri Feb-03-06 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #49
55. If they started closing embassies to protest *'s immoral actions
There are many folks in the US who would be the first to cheer.

So dealing with different moral standards is in the eye of the beholder.

As for individual, violent acts, or kidnapings by terrorist groups that are already at war with Israel / US, they need no excuse. Who said that legitimate spokespersons for Islam were threatening random acts of violence? Should legitimate spokespersons of Islam be held accountable for the actions of nominally religious "fundamentalists" with an axe to grind? There's no sense in treating random violent actions as part of the dialogue, but rather, as an expected consequence of the political tensions in the world that people are going to have to live with.

Cutting off free speech is not the answer. Neither is promoting these drawings like a latter-day "Birth of a Nation" (which was similarly pimped by the entire US power structure as the First Great American Movie, in response to requests by black intellectuals that it be condemned... very similar to the cartoon controversy.)

rockymountaindem (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-03-06 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
37. Jews do not believe Jesus was a prophet n/t

impeachdubya (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-03-06 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #16
54. Oh, give me a break.

Right wing fundies DO go berserk when Jesus is portrayed in ways they don't like- but they're wrong, too. At least when they cross the line into advocating censorship.

And you obviously don't know diddly about the Jewish religion. Judaism doesn't confer any special status onto Jesus at all. AFAIK, he doesn't even show up on the radar screen.

Truth Hurts A Lot (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-03-06 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
60. I didn't see the cartoon, but where do non-Muslim people get off
Edited on Fri Feb-03-06 04:39 PM by Truth Hurts A Lot

telling Middle Easterners how to feel about their prophet/ God being defamed? I just don't get it. If there is a hint of irritation in my post its because it seems the feelings of minorities are always brushed aside when its convenient (by both parties).

pitohui (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-03-06 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. the middle east don't rule the world quite yet thank you
you have it in reverse

the middle east is trying to tell europe what to put in their own newspapers and they are shutting down embassies and issuing death threats in a teeny tiny temper tantrum to get their way

if that is their religion i sure as hell can't respect that, it's contemptible, to threaten to cut off people's heads over some d**n scribbles on a piece of paper in another freakin country

Marie26 (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-03-06 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #73
75. Right
They're pulling the strings for the culture war, and we're all obliging. The cartoons were designed to anger Muslims, and spark further protests and outrage in the Islamic world. Then, in turn, Europeans would react by bemoaning the fanaticism & intolerance of the Islamic world; and wonder if they should really should be so sensitive to Muslim concerns. It creates more intolerance & mistrust on both sides. They're trying to spark more violence & succeeding.

[RPankn]

It's very transparent now what's going on with these cartoons: the neocons want their "clash of civilizations" for Eretz Israel. "Jim Sagle" and "Colorado Blue" are foaming-at-the-mouth Zionazis, and the kind that would get us all killed over a few acres of land in the Middle East. Their fig leaf of militant secularism, which covers for a political agenda, and talking points about "tolerance" and "free speech" are too reminiscent of Ben Gurion and his gang. I also note the absence of an uproar over laws which criminalize anti-semitism. By the way, I don't buy that the Kos diary was written by a Muslim.

Jim Sagle (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-03-06 10:19 PM
Original message
Progressive Muslims Support Cartoons: We Should Support Them

by Norwegian Chef

Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 07:34:48 PM PDT

Thousands of progressive and modernist Muslims are just like you and me here on Kos who believe it is to fine, in fact healthy, to cariacture religious leaders, including Muhammad and other modern and historic Islamic figures and to even to satire or parody him, and they have been very vocal on their own websites. There was a brilliant, young Islamic women on the BBC defending the cartoons and the right of Free Press/Free Speech. She went up against some male Islamic Wingnut and trounced him.

In fact in many sects of Shia Islam, their are Icons everywhere still commonly used respectfully depicting Muhammad and his family (just visit any house in Southern Iran). Muhammad pictures are up on the walls. This drawing of Muhammad is not just historical as some sites have noted. Did it ever occur to anyone why the Shia's have been more quiet in this debate than the Sunnis.

So for the newsmedia and even some here on Kos to claim that ALL Muslims are outraged and all Islam forbids cariactures is ridiculous. All Muslims are not outraged, and there is no shortage of Muhammad cariactures in many Middle Eastern homes today, Just because a fundamentalist minority is out on the streets, is no reason to buy into this hate speech nonsense--this is the same fundmentalist minority that can always be counted on to denounce anything and everything about the West, USA, Israel, Europe. Gays, Women etc etc. In fact very much akin to our Fundmenatalist Christian Wingnuts.

Is it any wonder that the Saudi Government, the Gulf Shiektatorshis,, the Bush Administration and the Vatican Hierarchy have all condemmed the cartoons in their usual arrogany pompous manner?? Let me think--what they all have in common?? The are all propped up by Fundamentalists, they hate Free Speech, hate Free Press, support male domination, oppress women, hate gays and other minorties.

More from www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/3/213448/9681#8

All supporters of religious and societal freedom will rally around these courageous progressives amd against their fundamentalist oppressors.

tocqueville (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-03-06 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. not tolerating mockery in both cases shows insecurity
in ones beliefs. So easier to rely on the "book". The step to believe that the Bible or the Koran are FACTS is then very little... then we know what follows....

WHERE ARE YOU VOLTAIRE, JEFFERSON, HUME, MONTESQUIEU WHEN WE NEED YOU ?

Colorado Blue (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-03-06 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
5. Wow. This puts a different light on matters doesn't it.
The fact is, the appearance of the protests and the threats DOES give the impression that all 1.3 billion of the world's Muslims are offended by the cartoons, and wish us dead.

I wish we could hear more from these moderate and liberal Muslims.

Where are they?

I also agree with the author that the violence in Sudan is appalling, and it would be nice to hear from some folks about that little problem. To date I believe some 2,000,000 people have died there in recent years.

Yet, one sees no flag burnings or even protests on their behalf, and precious little attention is paid to this catastrophe.

With regard to the cartoons, the Iraqi Shi'a leader said today that, while he deplores the publication of the cartoons, militant Islam has contributed to the problem by conveying a dark image to the world, causing people in the west to misinterpret this religion of brotherhood and peace.

news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Religion/

Colorado Blue (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-03-06 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Indeed - Bemildred pointed out on another thread that the
Nazis (and I would add, the Soviets) didn't flourish in the presence of a free press - but rather, in its absence.

[RPankn]

Why, it's almost as if frothing-at-the-mouth Zionazis littering "liberal" discussion sites, Reuters religion editors and certain European interior ministers are telepathic.

Mohammad cartoons row resembles dialogue of deaf

By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor
Fri Feb 3, 11:25 AM ET

PARIS (Reuters) - The row over caricatures of Islam's Prophet Mohammad resembles a dialogue of the deaf, with many European spokesmen defending the right to free speech and many Muslims insisting Islam must be treated with respect.

Calls for moderation, both from Muslim leaders and European politicians, risk getting lost in a public debate dominated by Europeans afraid of losing a core right of their culture and Muslims struggling to win more recognition for theirs.

Centuries of tradition stand behind both viewpoints, which may account for the virulence of the reactions aroused by the publication -- first in Denmark, then across Europe -- of cartoons depicting Mohammad as a terrorist.

The Europeans can date their long struggle for free speech to the 18th century Enlightenment and consider the liberty to criticize all authority a cornerstone of modern democracy. [Then why does Britian have a byzantine libel law, or can fine reporters for knowingly publishing false information?]

Muslims look back on centuries of Western hostility toward, and misunderstanding of, their religion and say the time is ripe -- with the higher profile for Muslims in the Middle East and Europe -- for Western countries to treat them as equals.

Egypt's ambassador in Copenhagen, Mona Omar Attia, highlighted the stalemate in comments after she heard Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen say his government could not apologize for anything that Danish newspapers had printed.

"This means that the whole story will continue and that we are back to square one again. The government of Denmark has to do something to appease the Muslim world," she said.

In separate statements, the French and German interior ministers defended their traditions against Muslim taboos.

"Why should the government apologize for something that happened in the exercise of press freedom?" Germany's Wolfgang Schaueble asked. "If the state intervenes, that is the first step toward limiting press freedom."

In Paris, Nicolas Sarkozy said: "Given the choice, I prefer too many caricatures to too much censorship."

RESPECT

The word "respect" repeatedly pops up in Muslim comments, revealing how much the cartoons linking Mohammad and terrorism hurt the feelings of people who feel humiliated by the West.

Mohamed Mestiri, head of the International Institute of Islamic Thought in Paris, said respect was the main issue for Muslims outraged by the images they consider blasphemous.

"It's all about creating a culture of respect, of wanting to live together under the roof of a plural citizenry," he said.

The head of France's Muslim Council saw the cartoons as the latest in a history of Western affronts to Muslims who only in recent years have mustered enough political clout to fight back.

"Yesterday, the world's Muslims were unable to react to critics who for centuries constantly dumped truckloads of slander on their religion, sacred books and Prophet," said Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Paris Grand Mosque.

While insisting European Muslims accept the separation of church and state, Mestiri warned against assuming Islam would ever tolerate criticism of what it held most sacred. "One must not judge Islam by the standards of Christian culture," he said.

EXCEPTION FOR JEWS?

Muslim spokesmen resent the way non-Muslims argue they cannot dilute press freedoms just for one religion but make an exception for Jews. [Yes. If Europe is so proud of "free speech," why do Austria and Germany have criminal laws against anti-semitic speech, or denying the government-endorsed version of the Holocaust?]

"Why do they say that Muslims have no right to condemn the publishing of those cartoons, when they fight tooth and nail against those who even talk negatively about the Holocaust?" asked Sheikh Hussain Halawa, secretary general of the European Council for Fatwa and Research.

These arguments seemed to have little influence at Liberation, the Paris daily that joined the European media's solidarity wave on Friday and reprinted two Danish cartoons.

It called the Danish caricatures "The Satanic Drawings," referring to "The Satanic Verses" whose criticism of Islam earned British author Salman Rushdie death threats in 1989.

"Rushdie's novel would be almost impossible to publish today," it wrote.


news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060203/wl_nm/religion_cartoons_deaf_dc

[RPankn]

This whole incident reeks of psy ops and agent provacateurs.

Syria protestors set Danish embassy on fire over cartoons

Saturday February 4, 04:16 PM

DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Hundreds of Syrian demonstrators set the Danish embassy on fire on Saturday to protest the printing by a Danish newspaper of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, a Reuters witness said.

The fire badly damaged the embassy's building. Protestors also threw stones at the building shattering its windows.


uk.news.yahoo.com/04022006/325/syria-protestors-set-danish-embassy-fire-cartoons.html

[RPankn]

Just like the de Menezes murder, and that of the Florida man at the hands of US air marshalls, the psy ops crew is back at DU.

rayofreason (368 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. Who will dare...
..."offend the sensibilities" of fundamentalist Muslims now?

What will be the next "offence", allowing unveiled women walk past a mosque in Berlin? If Piglet can be banned in a UK council office, why can't other "offensive" things be banned?

Luke21 (24 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. They are bullies...
As are all people of violence. They take our goodwill and mistake it for fear.

I'm all for freedom of religion, but these people treat women like their cattle. I can't believe how many fully covered women wearing burkas I've seen of late. Good grief. This is the United States.

TallahasseeGrannie (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #15
50. No
there is absolutely NO comparison between the treatment of women here and by Muslim extremists. It's like comparing a mud puddle with a flood.

And I know because I am a women here and while there have been some challenges, I have never been told to cover my body (other than my private areas) and I own land; I inherited my own money; I have an education; I work outside the home; I go placed without male relatives; if my family decides to whack me, they will go to jail; I can attend sporting events without watching my sisters die for adultery.... the list is long.

There is absolutely NO comparison at all. Even the most fundamentalist fundamental down at the Assembly of God acknowledges that women vote, work, have legal autonomy, etc. And I have NEVER heard even Rush or Pat or the other dummies suggest otherwise.

rayofreason (368 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. Thanks...
...for calmly, but effectively, slaming another false equivalency.

Some people really have no clue.

Yupster (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. I think it really is fear
more than goodwill.

You see cases like Van Gogh and realize it is very serious.

Free speech be d**ned. If you write something critical of Muslims you very well may be hunted down and have your throat slit.

This is a serious issue. Writers should not have to be in hiding.

CentralEuropeanDude (79 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #8
24. Women with burkas are harmless







Macman44 (44 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #24
38. Ooohh,
the "religion of peace" is preaching violence. Imagine that.

MrPrax (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
23. Your dog...
It might come in contact with a Muslim...be warned.

Best stop leading your life, I guess...

[N.B.: Bliarite shill.]
Taxloss (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
28. This entire situation is so far out of hand.
Hats off to Germany's government for having the cojones to defend free speech. Britain and the US should be ashamed of themselves for pandering to extremism. But the behaviour of the Middle Eastern governments who are condoning this behaviour with silence is disgusting. Especially Syria, sitting on its hands.

Taxloss (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. I disagree.
I'm aware that the Muslim world does feel threatened, with reason, by Western foreign policy, but to couple that with an editorial cartoon in a Danish newspaper is absurd. The states of the Middle East - especially Syria where, surprise surprise, the worst violence has been - sit on their hands and allow these situations get out of control because letting their people be angry at the West diverts attention from their own failings.

Free speech does come with responsibilities, but so does membership of a community of nations. The elites of these countries, whether they are our cronies or not, have little interest in civil society and use this sort of ourburst as a valve to control mob pressure.

It's interesting that you should mention Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and so on. All those situations created far more outrage, rightly so, in the Middle East as they did everywhere, but there was none of this violence because the states kept a lid on it. They did not want to escalate with the USA. But because this is "only Denmark", they're happy to sit back.

Taxloss (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. That may have been the attitude of the mob, but not the states.
The regimes in Syria, Jordan, Egypt et al aren't stupid. It's interesting to contrast the scene around the cartoon with the riots over the ferry deaths. In the latter, you can see the Egyptian state firmly re-imposing control. In the former, the Syrian state apparatus seems reluctant to act.

Bushy Being Born (107 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
29. Expect some of the apologists for fundamentalist islam on this board
to come and defend the "rights" of said scumbags to kill anyone who offends them shortly.

igil (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
30. The humorous--if I may use the word--thing about all of this
is that the reason the cartoons were solicited in the first place was illustrators' fear of publishing a kiddie book about Muhammed that would have ****respectfully**** portrayed him.

After van Gogh, many were afraid and said 'no' when asked to sign on. And the cartoons were an act of defiance against repression.

Stupid dhimmis.

augie38 (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
48. Muslims have to join the modern world or get left behind.
Stop wasting energy on something thats a "freedom of speech" issue and worry about how to advance the standard of living of their own people.

[RPankn]

This reeks of a planted story.

February 04, 2006

Danish cartoonists fear for their lives
From Anthony Browne in Brussels

TWELVE Danish cartoonists whose pictures sparked such outcry have gone into hiding under round-the-clock protection, fearing for their lives.

The cartoonists, many of whom had reservations about the pictures, have been shocked by how the affair has escalated into a global “clash of civilisations”. They have since tried, unsuccessfully, to stop them being reprinted.

A spokesman for the cartoonists said: “They are in hiding around Denmark. Some of them are really, really scared. They don’t want to see the pictures reprinted all over the world. We couldn’t stop it. We tried, but we couldn’t.”

Mogens Blicher Bjerregaard, president of the Danish Union of Journalists, told The Times: “They are keeping a very low profile. They are very concerned about their safety. They feel a big responsibility on their shoulders. It’s blown up so big. It is tough for them.”

The cartoonists’ names were originally printed in the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten. Flemming Rose, the paper’s cultural editor, invited 25 newspaper cartoonists to draw a picture of Muhammad “how they saw him”, after a children’s author complained that cartoonists would only dare illustrate a book he was writing on the life of Muhammad if they could be anonymous. Twelve cartoonists responded, had their pictures printed in September, and were paid 800 Danish krone (£73) each. [So why were these cartoons re-printed 5 months later?]

In an interview with a Swedish newspaper this week, some of the cartoonists expressed their doubts about the entire episode. “It felt a little like a lose-lose situation. If I said no, I was a coward who contributes to self-censorship. If I said yes, I became an irresponsible hate monger against Islam,” one of the cartoonists said.

Another said: “I was actually angry when I first received the letter [from Jyllands-Posten]. I thought it was a really bad idea. At first I didn’t want to participate, but then I talked it over with some friends from the Middle East, and they thought I should do it.”

The cartoonists come from a variety of different political backgrounds, which is reflected in their work. While some of the pictures satirise Muhammad, others attack populist right-wing politicians and even Jyllands-Posten itself, which is rightwing.

Having failed to stop the cartoons being reprinted across Europe, the cartoonists have now decided to use all the money raised from the sales of the pictures to set up a foundation which will award an annual international prize for press freedom.


www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2024306,00.html

[RPankn]

posted February 1, 2006 at 11:00 a.m.

Firestorm over Danish Muhammad cartoons continues

Newspaper that published cartoons received bomb threat a day after issuing apology.

By Arthur Bright | csmonitor.com

A Danish newspaper that ran a series of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad is still feeling the heat from their publication, having received a bomb threat one day after printing an apology to the Muslim world.
The Independent of London reports that Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest newspaper, evacuated its offices in Copenhagen and Arhus after the threat was phoned in Tuesday. It proved to be false.

The bomb threat comes in the aftermath of the September 2005 publication of the 12 cartoons, some of which seemed to equate Muhammad with terrorism. Since publication, Jyllands-Posten and Denmark have become the focus of the ire of the Muslim world. Demonstrators in Gaza have burned Danish flags, Saudi Arabia and Libya have withdrawn their ambassadors to Denmark, and Danish goods are being boycotted across the Middle East.

Jyllands-Posten ran an apology from Carsten Juste, the paper's editor in chief, on Monday.

In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize....

Maybe because of culturally based misunderstandings, the initiative to publish the 12 drawings has been interpreted as a campaign against Muslims in Denmark and the rest of the world.

I must categorically dismiss such an interpretation. Because of the very fact that we are strong proponents of the freedom of religion and because we respect the right of any human being to practise his or her religion, offending anybody on the grounds of their religious beliefs is unthinkable to us.

Although Danish Muslim groups initially welcomed Jyllands-Posten's apology, they have since declared it "ambiguous," reports the Associated Press.

"We lack a clear statement where the newspaper apologizes for the offense and stand by it," said Ahmed Akkari, a spokesman for the groups.

The cartoons were published last September by Jyllands-Posten after Flemming Rose, the paper's cultural editor, heard that Danish cartoonists "were too afraid of Muslim militants to illustrate a new children's biography of Islam's Prophet Muhammad," The Christian Science Monitor reported. Depictions of Muhammad are forbidden in Islam, as they are considered idolatrous.

While the cartoons' publication sparked much debate inside and outside Denmark, The Globe and Mail reports that a recent reprinting of the cartoons in a conservative Norwegian magazine gave the issue "new life." [The question is why a conservative Norwegian (member of the "coalition of the willing") magazine reprinted them 5 months later.]

Anger suddenly reverberated across the Middle East, with condemnation of Denmark and Norway coming from the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and Arab governments.

The BBC reports that Danish dairy company Arla Foods, which does $480 million in annual sales in the Middle East, has seen their sales there come to a complete stop and has had to lay off 100 people because of the boycott.

The cartoons were reprinted Wednesday in the French newspaper France Soir and in Germany's Die Welt. The papers asserted a "right to caricature God" and a "right to blasphemy," respectively.

The issue has been hotly debated in both the European and the Middle Eastern media. The BBC reports in a media review that Die Welt feels the Muslim response "begs the pressing question: 'Is Islam capable of coping with satire?'"

The paper points out that the issue has nothing to do with "a battle between cultures" as there are "thresholds of consideration" which cannot be crossed when it comes to making fun of religion. "But the standards that Muslims require are overtaxing for open societies," the paper believes.

The daily points out that in the West there is no right of exemption from satire. "Christianity itself has become a subject of pitiless criticism, an object of satirical analysis, which marks the triumph of humour over religious worship", it argues.

It points out that there was no protest when a primetime programme on Syrian TV portrayed a rabbi as a cannibal. "Muslims' protests would be taken more seriously if they came across as less hypocritical," the paper feels.

The BBC media review also reports that the Swedish newspaper Expressen expressed disappointment in the Jyllands-Posten apology, which it sees as a retreat in the face of "fundamentalist threats."

"Defending freedom of expression against fundamentalist threats is a cause. It is a matter of principle, whether it involves Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses', a film about veils and the oppression of women or some clumsy drawings in a Danish newspaper." [This "freedom of expression" talking point is certainly getting around when no European country recognizes an absolute right to free speech, or protects it with anything parallel to our First Amendment.]

Much of the criticism from Middle Eastern press has focused on the lack of official, legal ramifications for Jyllands-Posten and its cartoonists. In an editorial, the Khaleej Times of the United Arab Emirates expressed dismay that the Danish government has not formally apologized for the episode.

The prime minister continues to defend the insensitive newspaper in the name of ‘media freedom’. All freedom including that of the media comes with responsibility. Mocking people’s deeply held religious beliefs and sentiments is no media freedom. It’s sheer and unpardonable callousness.

(The editorial does not mention that Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said he "never would have depicted Muhammad, Jesus or any other religious character in a way that could offend other people.")

The Arab News of Saudi Arabia calls upon Denmark to legally ban religious hate speech, as Tony Blair is trying to do in Britain.

No one can say that the UK is any less committed to freedom of speech than Denmark. But Blair understands there are limits to freedom of speech, just as there are to freedom of action; people do not have the right to stir up riots and racial hatred, encourage mass hysteria or heap abuse on religion any more than they do to rob, rape, cheat or kill.

For his part, Mr. Rose has refused to back down in the face of Muslim criticism. He told The Times of London, "There is a lot at stake. It would be very naive to think this is only about Jyllands-Posten and 12 cartoons and apologising or not apologising."

"This is about standing for fundamental values that have been the (foundation) for the development of Western democracies over several hundred years, and we are now in a situation where those values are being challenged," he said. [Gosh, he sounds like Bush or Rumsfeld.]

"I think some of the Muslims who have reacted very strongly to these cartoons are being driven by totalitarian and authoritarian impulses, and the nature of these impulses is that if you give in once they will just put forward new requirements."

Rose refuses to apologize. "We do not apologise for printing the cartoons. It was our right to do so."


www.csmonitor.com/2006/0201/dailyUpdate.html

[Moses]

If I am not mistaken, Die Welt is owned by an American Usraeli. This appears to be a co-ordinated campaign by Zionazis. It reminds me of the flushing koran incident, and there was suspicion then that this was deliberate. Don't recall the timing, but there was something that the zionazis were trying to achieve at the time.

Now in this case, there has been orchestration to consolidate Europe behind the Zionazi agenda, particularly with regard to Iran, and to increase the terrorist threat to Europe. How interesting, the propaganda orchestrator PBS aired a Frontline special-- two weeks in a row -- unusual "examining" the "terrorist" threat to Europe.

Another factor is the accent of right wing international network puppet Merkel to power in Germany. Sarkozy is their man in France, and they also mean to co-ordinate events to elevate him.

[Moses]

Who owns France Soir? It is a right wing paper, non?

[RPankn]

I can't even believe this tranparent Zionazi b.s. is legitimate discussion on a "Democratic" "liberal" website. This is definitely not the Democratic Party I remember supporting before I was old enough to vote, and certainly not the one I registered for when I was. These people are a bunch of freakin crackers.

Instead of using 'dhimmi' -- which in itself is very revealing because I've only seen rightwing "settler" types use it pejoratively -- I don't understand why they don't come out and just call everyone who disagrees with them a dumb Goy.

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:04 PM
Original message
If you support the Muslim reaction, then you support Bush's War in Iraq
Okay, this is my argument.

A newspaper the Jyllands-Posten publishes pictures of Muhammad, in response Arabic and Muslim nations around the world have caused an international uproar. This has included death threats to not only the cartoonists, but also any Westerner in the Gaza strip and in several Islamic nations. Mullah Krekar, the alleged leader of the Islamist group Ansar al-Islam, who has been living in Norway as a refugee since 1991, said that the publication of the Muhammad cartoons was a declaration of war. 11 Muslim nations responded by demanding action from the DANISH GOVERNMENT , The Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League have demanded that the UNITED NATIONS impose international sanctions upon DENMARK.

The declaration by Muslims and Islamic nations has been if the Government doesn't do as we wish and meet our demands, Westerners and the Danish people have brought this upon themselves.

That kind of statement is what I recall Bush broadcasting to Saddam with his pack up and leave ultimatum back in March 2003, which meant Iraqi people if you do not accept us with Open arms you have brought this upon yourselves.

If you agree that threatening boycotts or death on Danes not responsible for the cartoons because another person of Danish descent created them, then you must agree with Bush when he states Iraqis who do not accept American removal of Saddam and an American backed Iraqi government deserve death and anything else done to them.

What I'm getting at is threats of violence that force Group A to change their behavior to suit Group B, is what has lead to many a Group/State/Nation/Coalition of the Willing to declaring War.

Then of course, that Coalition must make up enough lies (ie. damage to national honor, threats to home and hearth, propaganda that one group wants to rape all the nubile young women of the other group) to force a Cobbler from one country to go kill a Cobbler from another.

Just watch out everyone...

[United Staters? Obviously someone not posting from the US.]
genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. not at all
my point is the cartoons are a false rallying cry by Islmaic leadership to focus the discontent peoples attention away from their corrupt leadership and onto a boogeyman (in this case the Western Islamic Blasphemers) just the same way Bush used Saddam as a boogeyman to focus United Staters attention away from corrupt leadership.

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. i think that is the point
The paper orginally stated they had to have a special request for cartoonists to make those drawing because too many feared they would get a fatwa (Salman Rushdie or Theo Van Gogh mean anythiong to you) and the only reason the West has progressed to the status it has today is because people like Voltaire, decryed relgious intolerance.

Also, if I feel like saying that Muhammed was a nomadic desert merchant, who married 9 year olds, had hallucinations that angels were talking to him and was not divinely inspired I will do so.

As for civilized respect for other cultures it is difficult to respect another culture that demands I bow my head, be a good dhimmi and not upset any Muslims, because if I don't the Muslims are within their right to strike off my head...

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #64
68. Dhimmi
is the status afforded to certain peoples in Islamic Society. Dhimmitude was orginally offered to "People's of the Book" Jews and Christians, sometimes to Persians (Zoroastrians) and never to Pagans or Atheist or Hindus.

A dhimmi had to recognize his lesser status than a muslim, his home could never be grander than a muslims, he had to pay special taxes, he could not build new temples or churches on "Muslim" lands, if his old temple fell down or was burned to the ground it could not be rebuilt, he could never try (on pain of death) to convert muslims or marry muslim women, and religious services could not be done loud enough for Muslims to hear, his word was not believed in courts of law against a Muslims word...

It was second class status.

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. also
should Muslims demand the Italian government burn all copies of Dante's Inferno because it has Mohammed in the 9th Circle of Hell with his stomach flayed open? I mean that would seem to be a pretty bad blaspheme, to have the "one last true prophet" condemned to HELL?

danalytical (165 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Guess what is also ludicrous?
When all this started, there were boatloads of DU'ers supporting the protesters before really even understanding the situation. I hope the Danish newspaper prints some new cartoons that are even more insulting. I couldn't care less about a bunch of lunatics with absurd demands. I choose our freedom of ideas in the west over fanatical dolts burning embassies and taking hostages. I can hardly believe people can be so fanatical, but alas, they are.

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Thanks!
Great post, personally I don't see how DUers can defend the intolerant reaction the Muslim Ummah, I mean you would think we were living in a time when Blaspheme was the worst offense you could do. As opposed to I don't know, threating to murder those who draw?

donco6 (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-04-06 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #7
71. I can't figure that out, either.
It's almost as if many DUers came down on the side of the protesters simply because they . . . protested. Are we really saying a Western nation must adhere to the laws of Islam? And why just THAT one? Are we risking offending Islam by allowing women to walk around half naked?

Burkas for everyone! Quick!

TallahasseeGrannie (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. Thanks for thinking this one through
and I think I agree with you, although it gets confusing.

When do tolerant societies curtail intolerance?

This puts a whole new light on the crucifix in urine a few years back. I am glad I live in a country where we can still express ourselves no matter how disgustingly. I recently attended an art exhibit put on by graduating seniors at the local universities., And let me tell you, we still have freedom of speech in this country. At least here in Tallahasseee.

And the amazing thing (to me, at least) is that this is not even an issue of degrading symbols of their faith, but simply breaking the rules and showing the Prophet in artwork. (For which there are literally thousands of previous examples all over the world in books and museums.)

We shall see how this ends up. My gut reaction is they might have pushed the envelope (the fundamentalists) a bit this time.

[High five sister-in-Zion! We'll get these stupid Goys to learn to love Big Brother!]
genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Thanks!
for agreeing with me. You nailed the point! Thanks!

TallahasseeGrannie (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. I hear you
there are certainly danger signs, but hopefully those are pockets.

But this exhibit was filled with true hatred, expressed violently, toward Bush and even some towards Christianity... and nary a word in the local rag against it. So there are beacons of hope.,

Although I have to tell you candidly the work was juvenile (after all, college age) and really, really gross. But by God they displayed it and they haven't been marched off yet.

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
25. No prob!
Hey, I'm just pointing out that States and Societies often use the flimiest of reasons to impose their will upon another people.

You're right their is nothing wrong with boycotts! Of course, when people go to extra-governmental agencies and demand they step in and change the behavior of a soverign nation do you think that is allright?

What about death threats over a preceived insult?

And my point was slights to nation honor has been used by leaders in nation after nation as the cassus beli on numerous occasions.

Including sadly my nation...

manic expression (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
10. So if you're with Muslims, you're against freedom?
The cartoons were culturally and religiously insensitive and derogatory. Newspapers have a responsiblity to not be so callous. Furthermore, they should have anticipated such a reaction that was always going to come of the material.

Don't even try to lecture us about violence, because last I checked, Denmark had a hand in Bush's little attack on an entire Muslim nation.

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. so what?
So what if the cartoons are the most culturally insenstive things ever! It does not allow the Muslim nations of the world to demand the UN stifle a soverign state.

And when did I lecture anyone about Violence! I'm against violence. It seems to me the Muslim community is threatening violence in regards to pictures...

[This is a VERY REVEALING post.]
genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. "Callousness for a Culture"
are you serious? Really take a moment... I'll wait.

~ The Girl from Ipanema plays in the background ~

You are advocating that some speech is so awful and offensive that for the good of society it must be expunged!

And reactions, you are saying that since the Infidel Western World Dared Dared to insult a backwards, halluicnating, desert nomad who conducted raids on carvans and invaded Mecca, married a 9 year old girl and was generally not a nice man, they deserve the REACTION, which has included death threats, attacks on innocent not involved people because of their race, and burning of the Embassies today.

Nice to know under you we will all have to bow to the dhimmi status or die at the hands of righteous Muslims!

manic expression (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Yeah, it was callous
That much is obvious. Why would you deny that?

Nice straw-man. They have the right to publish such content, but the reaction against such an action is to be expected. They have a right to be insensitive, but don't be oblivious to the fact that insensitivity breeds backlash.

I'm glad you've clarified your disdain for Islam. However, your misguided hatred does not change the insulting nature of the caricatures, and don't expect an entire people to take an insult without protest. The reaction was not a surprise, as any idiot could tell you what was going to happen. If a newspaper is going to display that kind of inflammation, that is their action alone, and that makes it their responsibility.

Actually, I'm just asking for some respect and decency, something you clearly lack.

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. See my post on respect being earned.
Edited on Sat Feb-04-06 02:43 PM by genie_weenie

No straw man here.

The question is do they have the right to be Callous?

What do you think? Do they have that right?

As for an entire people taking an insult, sheesh, is the next step to AVENGE that insult???

Respect and Decency, I guess that falls under an earlier prohpet's turn the other cheeck, but clearly the Muslim world can't be expected to follow that rule.

As for my didain for Islam, I admit I am hard pressed to respect a religion that has imposed so much evil on the world, just as I am hard pressed to respect a Catholi Church which slaughtered thousands in the Inquistions, including the poor Cathars, a group to follow the teachings of Christ down to their destruction.

Instead of choosing to think I'm bigoted why don't we examine why this would be turned into such a firestorm?

manic expression (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #41
50. I did
It was a straw-man. They have the right to be callous, but a blind man could see the reaction that would come of it.

Oh, I see. So now you're saying Christianity is superior to Islam? History disagrees with you, because the Islamic world was the center of learning and tolerance while Christiandom was sitting in their petty fiefdoms, wallowing in ignorance, burning people, launching crusades and waiting for the apocoplypse.

It hasn't been Islam that has imposed evil on the world. Muslims have done bad things, and many are intolerant, but that does not represent Islam, and that does nothing to justify our own intolerance and callousness.

Islam is not the problem. The problem here is that a newspaper was irresponsible and callous. THAT is the problem, not Muhammed, not the Caliphate, not any fatwa, not the Saracens and certainly not Islam.

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #50
56. Istanbul not Constaniople
Actually, I didn't say Christianity is superior, if you read I decry the EVIL that Christians have done, however, Muslims are doing the evil today.

I like the launching Crusades line, though, because if I remember my History, the Levant and Egypt and Turkey have been Islmaic for 613,457 years, I mean d**n! Muslims, didn't forcibly take any of that land in the region. No sir!

And don't give me the line of, those who do evil do not represent true Islam.

And the Key here is Islam *WAS* the center for learning, but that stopped well before Hugelu birned Baghdad to the ground in 1258.

Islam has had it's day and now is sadly on the way out.

danalytical (165 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. and???
"The cartoons were culturally and religiously insensitive and derogatory."

and??? So what? So is Fox news' attack on Democrats on a daily basis, but are we Dem's burning local Fox affiliates around the nation. These people are irrational in their extremism. I HATE religious fanatic extremists. I simply don't care one bit about these peoples' feelings over a newspaper cartoon. They can protest and they can boycott goods, I can understand their anger, but the kind of reaction they are choosing is symptomatic of the larger problem with these uberfanatical muslim masses. It displays to the whole world how irrational and dangerous the fanatical section of the muslim world really is. Lets not forget their really is a problem over there with the fanaticism.

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Respect is earned!
Respect and Tolerance are earned. Respect is not given away!

I respect all Muslims right to worship. The way I hear it is Mooslims even have this right in the hateful evil United States!

Too bad Jews, Christians, Hindus, Atheists can't get that kind of respect in Muslim Nations!

Wait, I get it you are jsut palying Mohammed's Advocate (or Devil's Advocate if you prefer)!

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. Turkey?!?!?!?
Turkey is one of the most hateful evil nations ever!

Nice what the Turks did to the Armenians, right?
Nice what the Turks did to the Kurds, until they started giving some sham political maneuvers to convince the EU, that they changed their ways.

Do you know anything about the Kurds? Do you think the Kurds will get a nation of their own? Or will Turkey oppose it? And will Turkey go back to their destruction of Kurdish culture once they join those EVIL Christan NAtions in the EU?

Just answer me on any of those topics!

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. excuse me?
The destruction of the Kurdish people is going on today , in 2006, it wasn't until 2004, that Turkey allowed the Kurds to use KURDISH or use Kurdish names for their children. Or have Kurdish schools.

You also know that Turkey has 10,000 to 15,000 troops in N. Iraq, right? That's to protect the poor Turkomen from Kurdish reprisal, or that what the Turkish Military claims.

And you are right every nation is guilty of some of the most evil things, one could ever imagine, but as I am not guilty for the Sins of My Father, I must judge a nation, a group, a single man on his actions today.

And those things tell me that the Muslim reaction to a non-Muslim nation is wrong.

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. oh I like how you focus on Europeans
because only the evil white man has done anything bad, the Egyptians haven't been destroying the Copts, the Japenese haven't eliminated the Ainu, or subjected the Koreans to evils. There is nothing going on in the Sudan today!

Only that d**ned White Man!

redherring (111 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
16. Of course we don't agree with reaction of Muslim fanatics
but had Denmark published anti-semitic cartoons, there would be hell to pay. People would be fired life, right and center, and I bet all duers would agree that they *should* be fired for posting anti-semitic cartoons. We all know what the nazis did to the Jewish people.
However what I ask is this: why is it okay to publish anti-muslim cartoons? Shouldn't we respect all people? Just because Muslim fanatics act a certain way doesn't mean we need to emulate them. The way I see it is that Europeans can make fun of Jesus all they want, but don't publish anti-muslim or anti-semitic cartoons. The majority of Europeans are not Muslims or Jews. By making fun of the prophet Mohammed, the cartoonist is making fun of a different community, and people of this community are bound to be angered.
Now, it's true that the Muslim reaction has been over-the-top. However, let's face it, most Muslim countries aren't democratic. Many Muslims are fanatics. We expect the sort of reactions you describe from fanatics. Moderate muslims would of course not agree with that. But let's not stoop to their level. Europe and America are civilized countries. Let's act civilized. Let's not make fun of Mohammed. It's bound to rile up Muslims.

Guess what, I saw this coming a mile away. Remember what happened to Rushdie? Muslims are even more angry now, I feel.

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #16
28. Arabic and Muslim Nations
routinely publish pictures of Jews in sterotypical fashion or post articles by Imams claiming Jews are descended from Apes, Pigs and Dogs... Of coure this gets overlooked...

redherring (111 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. What about Indian Muslims?
Thomas Friedman wonders why Indian Muslims don't go on a suicide bombing rampage. Turkish Muslims aren't that bad either. Not all Muslims are intolerant, so I wouldn't generalize. However, all countries that are primarily Muslim are intolerant, I agree with that.
Tell me though, if Muslims do it, are we to do what they do? In Saudi Arabia, all citizens are Muslims. There is no Christian or Jew in Saudi Arabia. Are we to kick out all Muslims from America just because Muslim countries are intolerant?

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #48
54. Arab Muslims
Throughout time Arabic Muslims treated other peoples who converted to Islam with disdain. After all Muhammed was a Arabic nomad, so that must mean Arabs were greater than other Muslims. Anyway the real issue is that Denmark is not under Sharia and a corparate entity not controlled by the government (even if it does support the Right Wing Stance) can publish these images if it so chooses.

danalytical (165 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #16
30. Good points
All of them, and I even agree. However, I have no problem with picking on any religion or any idea. It would be fine by me if the cartoon was a mockery of Jesus or Moses. The cartoon in question tied the Muslim faith to suicide bombers, correct? OK, so is it not true that somewhere around 100% of suicide bombers are muslim? Or at least the ones we all know about. So the cartoon actually has a good point about the fanaticism of that particular religion. And trust me on this, I KNOW what I just wrote is insensitive, but that doesn't make the actual problem go away.

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. yeah right
Bush created arab intolerance, where in Vienna in 1683? In Constaniople in 1452? In Israel in 1948?

No.

Islam has spread throughout the world, like many religions, through violence and oppression. Period.

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. great!
But, the last time I checked a MAJORITY of the world 4.5 BILLION is not Islamic and are therfore not under Sharia Law.

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Yikes
Does this post have an OMINOUS music tag? Dun Dun Dunnnnnn...

Of course, I know what's in store for Atheist me and my family in a Muslim controlled world.

Death and Theft of all my chattels...

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. Justification
Bush *justified* the Iraq invasion with propaganda, the Muslim leadership of many nations is using this as propadanda to keep their peoples in the dark, as opposed to trying to bring their nations into the 21st century.

radio4progressives (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
49. We should Support No Tolerance for Bigoted Hate Speech
Edited on Sat Feb-04-06 02:44 PM by radio4progressives

The op is specious at best.

Do we support bigoted hate speech (which the offending cartoon is) in this country?

No we do not.

Do we tolerate racists characters in cartoons or comic strips in this country?

No we do not.

Would the Christians in this country be offended if the Taliban burned an effigy of Christ or created like imagery for publication in their news publications?

Who would argue otherwise? And do we not issue state sponsored death threats to their leaders from the white house?

c'mon people. Start using REASON for a change.

We need to discourage bigotry and hate speech, but more to the point we need to denounce religious fundamentalism within OUR OWN CULTURE, starting right here at home.

While we say that people are free to worship religion as they wish in this country, we need to make it clear that is a right in the privacy of their own lives, and church of worship but that's where it ends.

Because we allow religious fundamentalism into the realm of public fora and institutions - we encourage and cultivate tolerance for extremism here and abroad.

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. Tolerance for extremism
Muslims are not a race.

Did you know that when the protesting Muslims burned the Danish Flag, They ARE BURNING A CROSS, I haven't heard NATO or The Papacy demand an apology from the Nations of muslims protesting over the desecration of Christian Symbol.

And if I understand the crux of your argument it's that hate speech is too be censored. So, does that mean some speech is so bad we need to cull it? Where do you stop?

Ksec (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-04-06 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
53. Still searching for comedy in Islam.
Seriously.

genie_weenie (133 posts) Sat Feb-04-06 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. I was going for a dialouge
that was the point of the absurb tagline.

To you the cartoons are rude, I respect your opinoin, to someone else they may not be rude or offensive, I respect that view as well.

But, the real question is, Who gets to determine?

And I think I have raised a legitmate question when I state Muslim leadership has used this firestorm to keep their peoples from focusing on domestic problems and given them a foreign boogeyman to burn...

Sometimes, literally burn...

[Moses]

Notice that the DU thread cited above was not shut down. But one word of criticism toward Israel and the thread is shut down and the poster banned.

[nana]

i wonder how many would be as accepting of these disrespectful cartoons if they depicted Jesus instead of Mohammed?

These remind me of the cartoon type propaganda published in Germany in the 1930's to demean and dehumanize the Jews.

Just like at Halloween, how many Christians would stand for the female followers of their religion being depicted as ugly green skinned hags the way the female followers of Wicca are depicted?

It's interesting to see the reactions when the disrespectful stuff is aimed at the religion that is near and dear to one's own heart and soul as opposed to 'the other guys'. (but of course "that's different" ... right?)

I wonder when people will come to realize that to have one's own traditions and beliefs respected BY others, one must first respect the traditions and beliefs OF others?