Muhammad and the Bomb (threat)

pH

secret_squirrel wrote:

Whats really the core of the issue here is the fact that our greater freedom of speech requires of us to actually consider whether others might be offended by something we say or do and practise self censorship accordlingly. Arguably this is what the Artist and Newspapers failed to do. Another good example of someone who failed to do that is Salman Rushdie.

I can't help thinking that you subconciously add "where I agree with it" to that statement. Here's the rub, should no newspaper have posted a cartoon which may have offended a racist white South African during Apartheid?

Is this really what you're saying, or have you got a subconcious "I know what's right and wrong" going on here?

You see I can't believe that you're really saying:

... freedom of speech requires of us to actually consider whether others might be offended by something we say or do and practise self censorship accordlingly
Is this a blanket rule? No-one ever, no matter what, should be offended by anything in our media? We cannot offend or mock China for censoring the internet? Or politicians for being self-obsessed or Tom Cruise fans for being ...
or are you really saying that *your* moral compass is perfect and you should get to decide who can be offended and who can't?

is_that_so

... freedom of speech requires of us to actually consider whether others might be offended by something we say or do and practise self censorship accordlingly

I agree with the basic tenet, "every right has its own responsibilities". Something that is said is very hard to unsay and rumour and hearsay continue to do untold damage. To my mind once someone says "I can", the next question is "but should I" ?

Having seen the offending cartoons, I can see how they might might offend but it does not excuse some of the violent reactions, much of which has more to do with politics than perceived slights.

They are not even funny. In fact I think the whole set of cartoons is bloody awful. Is it a case of them looking better at the time?

As for categorising the cartoons as satire ;to produce good satire that hits, as Swift did, you need to know your subject innately. The cartoonist quite clearly had no idea.

As Islam prohibits pictures of the prophet they were going to offend anyway and I am sure the clever man who produced them could have come up with a better way of saying whatever he was trying to say.

flogen

is_that_so wrote:

I agree with the basic tenet, "every right has its own responsibilities". Something that is said is very hard to unsay and rumour and hearsay continue to do untold damage. To my mind once someone says "I can", the next question is "but should I" ?

Having seen the offending cartoons, I can see how they might might offend but it does not excuse some of the violent reactions, much of which has more to do with politics than perceived slights.

But they are not even funny. In fact I think the whole set of cartoons is bloody awful. Is it a case of them looking better at the time?

Exactly; the comic value is outweighed by the offence caused; just like Popetown (the cartoon BBC dropped); what i saw of it was terrible, so while it was bound to offend the catholic church, it was a pointless offence.

As for categorising the cartoons as satire ;to produce good satire that hits, as Swift did, you need to know your subject innately. The cartoonist quite clearly had no idea.

Excellent point.

As Islam prohibits pictures of the prophet they were going to offend anyway and I am sure the clever man who produced them could have come up with a better way of saying whatever he was trying to say.

As I've been saying all along; I agree with the message the cartoonist intended to make but I have no doubt that he could have made it in a much less controversial way.

Freddie59

secret_squirrel wrote:

Your example is laughable. If you had been on boards.ie for more than 5 minutes you would know that all of those freedoms are limited here. Generally for good reasons.

You seem to have problems grasping the fact that there is nowhere that doesnt have limits on freedom of speech in some shape or form. Arguably we in the west have more freedom of speech than those in the middle east however its still limited.

Most Western Papers freedom of speech is still limited by their owners, their editors and the demographics of their readship.

Whats really the core of the issue here is the fact that our greater freedom of speech requires of us to actually consider whether others might be offended by something we say or do and practise self censorship accordlingly. Arguably this is what the Artist and Newspapers failed to do. Another good example of someone who failed to do that is Salman Rushdie.

Both examples chose not to censor themselves, therefore both should be prepared to deal with the consequences of their actions.

I dont condone the violence directed towards them, but Im not sure money should be wasted defending them from the consenquences of those actions when they knew in advance the likely outcome.

Just because we have freedom of speech doesnt mean that its always a good idea to exercise it.

I have asked already - is there an Iranian version of boards.ie? No. Because:

"Internet access in Iran is subject to official censorship. Iranian authorities' guidelines for ISPs and users reportedly warn them to avoid all content seen as being in breach of social and cultural norms. In practice, the filtering of Iranian ISPs extends to cover political as well as pornographic web sites."

From: http://opennetinitiative.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=9&mode=thread

flogen

Freddie59 wrote:

I have asked already - is there an Iranian version of boards.ie? No. Because:

"Internet access in Iran is subject to official censorship. Iranian authorities' guidelines for ISPs and users reportedly warn them to avoid all content seen as being in breach of social and cultural norms. In practice, the filtering of Iranian ISPs extends to cover political as well as pornographic web sites."

From: http://opennetinitiative.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=9&mode=thread

As was SS's point, boards.ie is not subject to limitations too; no Western country has truely free speech (in the concept that you can say and do whatever you want, no matter what), Iran is strict, yes, but boards.ie and Ireland is not 100% free.

lazydaisy

Hmnn flogen Im not sure about that.

I know there's the yell fire clause which limits it but other than that???

There was a famous case in Washington state where a group of neo nazis wanted to demonstrate. The problem was that they wanted to demonstrate in a town where there was a community of holocaust survivors. So it went to court and they were permitted to demonstrate despite the fact that people in that community probably had PTSD. Can you get much more freedom/insensitivity than that?

What is really worrying is how much the BNPs membership is going to go up after these riots. :eek: :eek: :eek:

flogen

lazydaisy wrote:

Hmnn flogen Im not sure about that.

I know there's the yell fire clause which limits it but other than that???

There was a famous case in Washington state where a group of neo nazis wanted to demonstrate. The problem was that they wanted to demonstrate in a town where there was a community of holocaust survivors. So it went to court and they were permitted to demonstrate despite the fact that people in that community probably had PTSD. Can you get much more freedom/insensitivity than that?

US law is much more leniant than Irish or UK, as I'm sure you know.
However, I see your point; but just because we can doesn't mean we should.
In that case in Ireland the neo-nazi group wouldn't be allowed to exist (of course they do, but underground).
I mean, forgetting about the legal implications for one second; it was morally wrong (or culturally ignorant) of the cartoonists to publish that cartoon.

lazydaisy

It doesnt mean we should set embassies on fire and kill people either.

Lets not forget its one thing to be insenstitive and its another to be a criminal.

flogen

lazydaisy wrote:

It doesnt mean we should set embassies on fire and kill people either.

Lets not forget its one thing to be insenstitive and its another to be a criminal.

Firstly, this thread is not here to discuss the actions of the protesting muslim, but the media representation of it

Secondly, I never said that the cartoon justified the actions of the protesters, in fact I would say nothing does. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Hagar

flogen wrote:

it was morally wrong (or culturally ignorant) of the cartoonists to publish that cartoon.

They weren't published in a muslim state, they were published in Denmark so it was neither "morally wrong or culturallly ignorant". Europe has a different set of morals and a different culture. We don't march to the beat of a muslim drum nor will we ever.

Now if the cartoons had been published in the ME I would agree but they were'nt, were they?

lazydaisy

They were published in Egypt several months ago.

Somethings rotten in the state of Denmark.

Hagar

lazydaisy wrote:

They were published in Egypt several months ago.

Somethings rotten in the state of Denmark.

Why were there no riots several months ago then?

flogen

Hagar wrote:

They weren't published in a muslim state, they were published in Denmark so it was neither "morally wrong or culturallly ignorant". Europe has a different set of morals and a different culture. We don't march to the beat of a muslim drum nor will we ever.

Now if the cartoons had been published in the ME I would agree but they were'nt, were they?

So Denmark and the rest of Europe doesn't need to respect other cultures??
That's not an aspect of Europe I want to be a part of; we have a large Muslim community across the EU, and these cartoons insulted their beliefs and culture, it's not just ME states that are insulted.

As for no riots months ago, I'm not sure but it seems as though the riots started when newspapers started republishing the cartoons and when there was no apology from the original newspaper (They were published in Denmark in October, right?).

lazydaisy

Here is a succinct timeline of these events from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

The stuff about laws around not depicting Mohammad is rubbish.
This is an image archive of pictures depicting Mohammed.
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

According to this the cartoons were published in Egypt in Oct 2005. This is a very interesting blog.
http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html

Here is an account of the Danish Immams plans.
http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/files/danish_letter.pdf

Three of them were apparantly fake, including the pigsnout one. Someone found the source here:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/danish-imams-busted.html


Say goodbye to your civil liberties:

Malaysia.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-02-10T052654Z_01_L09699132_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-CARTOONS.xml&rpc=22

Yemeni
http://www.cpj.org/news/2006/mideast/yemen07feb06na.html

South Africa
http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-02-08-voa40.cfm

Ukraine
http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/index.php?id=148&listid=24825

Poland
http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=273896&sid=WOR

Canada
http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=1422&sc=1

Sweden
http://instapundit.com/archives/028522.php

EU
http://www.newkerala.com/news2.php?action=fullnews&id=5918

flogen

lazydaisy wrote:

Here is a succinct timeline of these events from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

The stuff about laws around not depicting Mohammad is rubbish.
This is an image archive of pictures depicting Mohammed.
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

From what I understand, it's not. It's a rule in Islam that is not always followed; the real controversy comes from the misinterpretation of the images but the fact that Mohammed is used is an insult to Muslims (IMO if someone misinterprets the cartoon, that's their problem, but there is no denying that the cartoons use of Mohammed is an insult no matter what you think of the message)

Say goodbye to your civil liberties:

EU
http://www.newkerala.com/news2.php?action=fullnews&id=5918

n an interview with Britain's Daily Telegraph, EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini said the charter would encourage the media to show ''prudence'' when covering religion.

''The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression,'' he told the newspaper. ''We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right.'' The cartoons, which first appeared in a Danish newspaper last September before being reprinted across Europe, sparked a wave of protests around the world.

A code encouraging the media to show prudence when covering religion? Where's the problem?

His proposed voluntary code would urge the media to respect all religious sensibilities but would not offer privileged status to any one faith.

Voluntary too? Do you seriously think this is anything more than an attempt to make the official stance of EU and its states clear? This is what we'd like our media to do, but it's up to them...

lazydaisy

Well there's no problem if you dont mind saying goodbye to your civil liberties.

I for one do not plan on letting them go. I will not be wearing a burkha or a headscarf in 20 years thank you. There were far too many before me who made great sacrifices so I could live freely and I plan on protecting that inheritance.

Those cartoon were not that offensive. It's utter BS. The three that are "controversial " were fabricated by the Danish Immans.

If its so bad to make pictorial representations of Mohammed why did the Egyptian paper publish the cartoons.

Here are a few examples where offensive isnt/wasn't a bad thing:

Rosa Parks
Jesus
Ghandi
Martin Luther
Martin Luther King, Jr.
The French Resistance
Elvis
Early Jazz musicians/composers
James Joyce
Darwin

Jazz was once offensive. Rock and roll was once offensive. Maplethorpe was offensive. Joan of Arc was offensive.

Offensive - has often been the hallmark of great art and progress.

flogen

lazydaisy wrote:

Well there's no problem if you dont mind saying goodbye to your civil liberties.

Which of your civil liberties are being taken away from you with the proposed EU code of conduct (which probably won't happen)?

I for one do not plan on letting them go. I will not be wearing a burkha or a headscarf in 20 years thank you. There were far too many before me who made great sacrifices so I could live freely and I plan on protecting that inheritance.

As you seem aware there are a minority of Muslims (whom are a minority in themselves) who would wish to force their view upon people; respecting the real Muslim faith is not about giving up your beliefs, it's about following in the inter-faith idea of co-existance.

Those cartoon were not that offensive. It's utter BS. The three that are "controversial " were fabricated by the Danish Immans.

The only cartoon that I have seen, or that I have heard people complian about was the one featuring Mohammed with a bomb for a turbin. This was printed and it was offensive.

If its so bad to make pictorial representations of Mohammed why did the Egyptian paper publish the cartoons.

I'm not sure; perhaps they wanted to show what the controversy was all about, perhaps they decided to ignore Muslim beliefs also. You'd really have to speak to them

Here are a few examples where offensive isnt/wasn't a bad thing:

Rosa Parks
Jesus
Ghandi
Martin Luther
Martin Luther King, Jr.
The French Resistance
Elvis
Early Jazz musicians/composers
James Joyce
Darwin

Offensive - has often been the hallmark of great art and progress.

The above are no comparison with the current situation; none of the people you mentioned above insulted the prophet or symbol of a religion, while disregarding a belief of that religion. Some questioned religion, some challenged preconcieved notions which stemmed from Religious teachings but none insulted religion through spite or ignorance.
I can't see any similarities between any of your examples

lazydaisy

Flogen - I meant to put Madonna on that list too.

Many of them offended sensibilites around sexuality which were prescribed by religious codes.

Since when does religion get special exemption from the target of offending list. Why should it?

Flogen - seriously you should look at the pictures - all of them, including the three cartoons that were made up. Otherise you are engaging in a debate in which you dont have all the information. Do you need a link for them? I can get you one.

There is plenty of comparison. The heart of this issue is freedom of speech and insensitivity. There are tons more. In fact most 20th century artists who made any headway in their culture started out by being offensive.

My point about civil liberties is that this is the beginning of the end. Everytime you give into a bully he or she just gets stronger and stronger.

pH

A code encouraging the media to show prudence when covering religion? Where's the problem?

Well look at the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal in Ireland. Part of why it went on, and why the catholic church could handle it the way they did was a media being 'very prudent' in covering religion.

In my opinion we need to err well on the side of being 'too open', and balance the offense caused every now and then against the media's ability to shine light into some really dark corners without fear of censorship.

So Denmark and the rest of Europe doesn't need to respect other cultures??

Of course not, there is a lot about other cultures that we don't need to respect. I didn't respect the Taliban's treatment of women or public beheadings in Suad. I think they are barbaric customs and their cultures would be better off without them. There can be no blanket respect rule for other cultures, should we have respected the apartheid culture?

You (and me, and a Danish journalist) respect what we respect, and should have the right to mock/critisise what we don't.

From what I understand, it's not. It's a rule in Islam that is not always followed;

May I remind you why this whole thing started - An author was trying to get a cartoonist to draw mohammed (in a secular European state), but found that he couldn't because the artists feared reprisals. The journalist found a number of cartoonists who *would* and wrote an article and published some cartoons. As I've said before the 'bomb-turban' is not a terrorist representation to me, merely a 'ticking-bomb' metaphor, which should be reasonably obvious to anyone viewing the cartoon who understands cartoons and political satire.

is_that_so

pH wrote:

As I've said before the 'bomb-turban' is not a terrorist representation to me, merely a 'ticking-bomb' metaphor, which should be reasonably obvious to anyone viewing the cartoon who understands cartoons and political satire.

As satire goes it was exceptionally poor. A cheap and easy target. It is like the Church bashing that goes on i.e. "Catholic Church=abuse". It is lazy and shows a closed mind that will not seek to understand.

It will not offend you because you don't understand why it could be offensive much like the hapless cartoonist. As for civil liberties, these same liberties apply to Muslims, being free to express their opinions and lifestyle.

mike65

from rte.

President condemns publication of cartoons

12 February 2006 13:39

President Mary McAleese has condemned the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed which have given rise to violent protests throughout the Islamic world.

The President said that Ireland abhorred the publication of the cartoons which she said had been designed to provoke, to be rude and to inflame.

She said the Muslim community in Ireland shared with the Irish community an equal abhorrence at the use of violent protest.

Why do I feel queasy reading that?

Mike.

Freddie59

flogen wrote:

So Denmark and the rest of Europe doesn't need to respect other cultures??
That's not an aspect of Europe I want to be a part of; we have a large Muslim community across the EU, and these cartoons insulted their beliefs and culture, it's not just ME states that are insulted.

As for no riots months ago, I'm not sure but it seems as though the riots started when newspapers started republishing the cartoons and when there was no apology from the original newspaper (They were published in Denmark in October, right?).

Isn't it a fact that it was Danish muslims brought the 'offending' cartoons to the ME some months after they were published. The problem is that they also brought ones which HAD NOT been published. An agenda one thinks?

Freddie59

mike65 wrote:

from rte.



Why do I feel queasy reading that?

Mike.

She certainly doesn't share with or represent me - and I voted for her.:mad:

lazydaisy

mike65 wrote:

from rte.

Why do I feel queasy reading that?
Mike.

Because too much spin can make you dizzy and ill.

It has Gerry Adams all over it me thinks.

The west with its all its apologetic self loathing is letting down the muslims who are seeking a more secular and free world not to mention its own people who made great sacrifices to forge and protect these freedoms.

pH

As satire goes it was exceptionally poor. A cheap and easy target. It is like the Church bashing that goes on i.e. "Catholic Church=abuse". It is lazy and shows a closed mind that will not seek to understand.

I think portraying Islam as a cheap and easy target is ludicrous. It is a very powerful religion with state support throughout the world. It has practices and beliefs which I (and Danish cartoonists) have the right to mock if I (they) want.

The cartoon which I read as a metaphor for a 'ticking bomb', you see as an image of mohammed as a terrorist and others see as offensive image of their prophet - such is the wonder of art - when we are allowed see it.

As I asked before, where we all lazy and closed minded for not seeking to understand apartheid?

flogen

lazydaisy wrote:

Flogen - I meant to put Madonna on that list too.

Many of them offended sensibilites around sexuality which were prescribed by religious codes.

I don't think the cartoon was offensive because it questioned the perversion of Islam by some people; it was because in doing so it ignored a belief of all Islamic believers, extreme or moderate.
Jeering the prophet of a religion is not the same as questioning a religion or challenging religious beliefs.

Since when does religion get special exemption from the target of offending list. Why should it?

When did I say it should?

Flogen - seriously you should look at the pictures - all of them, including the three cartoons that were made up. Otherise you are engaging in a debate in which you dont have all the information. Do you need a link for them? I can get you one.

My apologies, that came across wrong on my part; the one that I was generally speaking about was the bomb-turbin one; I have seen the others.

There is plenty of comparison. The heart of this issue is freedom of speech and insensitivity. There are tons more. In fact most 20th century artists who made any headway in their culture started out by being offensive.

But offensive on what grounds? Was it because they ignored a religious ideal, or challenged it?

My point about civil liberties is that this is the beginning of the end. Everytime you give into a bully he or she just gets stronger and stronger.

What bully? I choose to ignore the voices of those who demand physical vengence for the cartoons, they don't speak for anyone but themselves as far as I'm concerned, I listen to the regular believers, the ones who want dialogue and progress.

Freddie59 wrote:

Isn't it a fact that it was Danish muslims brought the 'offending' cartoons to the ME some months after they were published. The problem is that they also brought ones which HAD NOT been published. An agenda one thinks?

A group of Muslims brought the cartoons to the ME, yes. Under the pretense of dialogue, yes. Was there a hidden agenda? I don't know, did their actions represent those of the Danish Muslim community? I don't think so.

lazydaisy wrote:

The west with its all its apologetic self loathing is letting down the muslims who are seeking a more secular and free world not to mention its own people who made great sacrifices to forge and protect these freedoms.

What Muslim groups have come out in support of the cartoons? I've yet to see one. I've seem plenty condeming the actions of the extremist protesters, but that's only right.

pH wrote:

I think portraying Islam as a cheap and easy target is ludicrous. It is a very powerful religion with state support throughout the world. It has practices and beliefs which I (and Danish cartoonists) have the right to mock if I (they) want.

No one should have the right to mock any religious beliefs or any culture; satire is there to point out fault through humour, you are free to question and challenge the beliefs of a religion, but you are showing nothing but ignorance and intolerance by mocking them.
Here's an example, someone mentioned Bill Hicks earlier; one of my favourite quotes of his was when he questioned the use of the crucifix in Christianity. He said it was no better than wearing a rifle pendant to comemorate the life of JFK. Now the crucifix is a basic symbol of Christianity, but Hicks wasn't mocking it, he was questioning the logic behind it's use.
A much cleverer cartoon which came out after this controversy was the "I must not draw Muhammed" one; where the artist had written the words "I must not draw Muhammed" again and again on a page and they formed a very vague outline of their prophet; to me that is questioning the logic of not using his image rather than ignoring the belief completely; there's a subtle but important difference.

The cartoon which I read as a metaphor for a 'ticking bomb', you see as an image of mohammed as a terrorist and others see as offensive image of their prophet - such is the wonder of art - when we are allowed see it.

I took the image to suggest that the word of Mohammed was being subverted by extremists; I'm sure others took it as saying that he himself was a terrorist, but that's their problem. The insult IMO comes when they ignored a basic belief of the religion. The point could have been carried in a much better fashion were the artists not so ignorant.

As I asked before, where we all lazy and closed minded for not seeking to understand apartheid?

Are you trying to compare a peaceful religion with the systematic segregation and discrimination of people on the basis of their race? How do you come to that conclusion?

lazydaisy

People have the right to take the piss out of anything they like. Freedom of speech gives us this right. It is the cornerstone of a free world.

You seem to think that Islam should have an exemption to this?

Exactly, where are the moderates speaking up? They arent. So either, they are afraid or they support the protesters who have so far killed 11 people.

Mocking and criticism are not inseperable. Comedy is a form of cultural criticism which is where political cartoons fit. [I thought the cartoon saying weve run out of virgins was actually quite funny].

The irony is that the reaction to the cartoon just validated the interpretation the protestors were so offended by.

But this isn't about respect is it? Its about fear and we all know it.

Here's an interesting article in todays Sunday Times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2036285,00.html

I mentioned Madonna because on one of her tours she made a crucifix out of two dildos and simulated masterbation with it live. Would you find that offensive? Or not because she was raised Catholic. Does her conversion to Judaism make you read that differently?

flogen

lazydaisy wrote:

People have the right to take the piss out of anything they like. Freedom of speech gives us this right. It is the cornerstone of a free world.

The cornerstone of a free world is the freedom to mock what we don't understand or what we can't be bothered to understand? I don't agree with that one bit.
A free society gives us the oppertunity to discuss our differences without persecution or abuse, it gives us the freedom to disagree, to challenge and to explain constructively. There is no progress in mocking each other, the point of the cartoons was lost in the ignorance, just like your below example; the point of madonnas actions were lost in her need to shock.

You seem to think that Islam should have an exemption to this?

No, I don't think any religion should be subjected to ignorant insult; all religions should be open to constructive criticism.

Exactly, where are the moderates speaking up? They arent. So either, they are afraid or they support the protesters who have so far killed 11 people.

You obviously haven't been watching my TV. I caught an episode of Newsnight where only 1 of 3 or 4 muslims took an extreme view, the rest said they were offended and wished to discuss the matter to ensure that their issues are understood.

Mocking and criticism are not inseperable. Comedy is a form of cultural criticism which is where political cartoons fit. [I thought the cartoon saying weve run out of virgins was actually quite funny].

Of course it is; to mock is to make fun of something, to point and laugh at the faults of someone or something and to look down on it; to criticise is to point out the faults and give reason and justification, and perhaps a suggestion on how to progress. Mocking is what people do to make little of others, criticise is what people do to try and highlight an issue that is best resolved.

The irony is that the reaction to the cartoon just validated the interpretation the protestors were so offended by.

To some degree, yes. Taking the original message of the cartoon, they showed the subversion and hijacking of a peaceful religion by non-peaceful people, that still doesn't justify insulting moderate muslims.

But this isn't about respect is it? Its about fear and we all know it.

What? This isn't about showing respect to other people? I refuse to compromise my beliefs because a tiny minority of a minority want me to, and
one of my beliefs is that we should respect each other. I'm not afraid of anyone who wants me dead because I'm Christian, and I think refusing to show moderate muslims respect would be to give in to extreemist pressure.

Here's an interesting article in todays Sunday Times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2036285,00.html

From what I read of the piece it is pointing out that Moderate voices in Islam are being overshadowed by extreemists, by their own unwillingness to act and by the extreemists violent threats. I think that it is somewhat true, but the media have a role to play also. The fact is the newspapers and TV channels are going to cover violent protests because it's more newsworth than peaceful ones. Did you see the protests in London yesterday? They were completely peaceful and a stark change from the first extreme protests we saw a week or so ago.

I mentioned Madonna because on one of her tours she made a crucifix out of two dildos and simulated masterbation with it live. Would you find that offensive? Or not because she was raised Catholic. Does her conversion to Judaism make you read that differently?

Frankly I find that pointless, It doesn't say anything to me, I can understand why people would be offended by it and I think that her point (whatever it was) was miniscule. I'd be certain that she did it to offend and to cause uproar, and I think anyone who does that, for whatever reason, is an idiot and shouldn't be given the time of day.

pH

flogen wrote:

Are you trying to compare a peaceful religion with the systematic segregation and discrimination of people on the basis of their race? How do you come to that conclusion?

No I'm not, but you continue to say things like:
No one should have the right to mock any religious beliefs or any culture;

Which taken as read says we should have respected the apartheid 'culture' because we should never cause offense at all.

And I'm trying to understand if you really mean that or are you really saying that your moral compass is so well adjusted that you can decide for all of us what the media can make fun of and what it can't;

The cornerstone of a free world is the freedom to mock what we don't understand or what we can't be bothered to understand? I don't agree with that one bit.

Well I do, unless you're suggesting some form of 'comedic exam' to test a comedian's knowledge of something before he or she dares to comment. We cannot test for understanding - and if a few ill-informed comments are the price to pay for the vast majority of informed humour then it is a price well worth paying.

is_that_so

mike65 wrote:

from rte.



Why do I feel queasy reading that?

Mike.

Em... she was in Jeddah at an economic conference. :rolleyes: