If it was Jesus

daithimac

I was wondering what peoples reactions would be the roles were reversed and it was a arab nation who had printed cartoons of jesus which were insulting to the christian faith. Would the reaction through out Europe be even half as intence. I know in the US the would be a strong reaction from evangelical's but I still don't think It would be as strong as the Musulm reaction in afghanistan

Call_Me,Stan

There have been loads of images of Jesus (although not from the Arab world) and none of these have caused much controversay (except the gay Jesus in The Jerry Springer Musical)
i.e. Jesus & Friends in South Park, Various Family Guy references, etc.

I don't think the reactions are anywhere near the same.

Yeah but the difference is people are used to having pictures of jesus everywhere so that's ok, the muslims are forbidden/forbid having any drawings at all of Muhammed (hope I spelled that right). So it's not quite the same

starn

What if was a picture of Mary bombing a abortin clinic or dressed as as a prostituite, or someone squatting down taling a dump on the bible. What about all the contoversy in the 80's when spitting Image had a puppet of the crucified. We heared all about it then. This sort of stuff really pisses me off. A image of Muhammud is concidered sacralious. So imaging the effect of one depicting him as a suicide bomber. There are plenty of regular muslims who dont go round blowing themselfs up. Just like ther are plenty of christians who dont go round blowing up abortion clinics. It pisses me off that the media always have to show the extremist

BrianCalgary

If Muslims have moved to European countries from Arab states, they have to understand that they have the right to build mosques and worship in their way without any reprisals, they then have to accept that with that freedom comes the possibility of hearing and seeing something offensive. As you said Bluewolf, it is a brand new experience for many of them.

Well that and they actually have a rule against it, which christians dont, so the two arent comparable in that sense.

I think they're way overreacting, definitely, but a little more respect from the world for their religion would be good.

starn

I agree compleley with you Brian.The paper had everyright to publish the pictures. But they should show a little more respect. instead of just taking the piss

RobEire

bluewolf wrote:

Yeah but the difference is people are used to having pictures of jesus everywhere so that's ok, the muslims are forbidden/forbid having any drawings at all of Muhammed (hope I spelled that right). So it's not quite the same

Surely the ban on depictions of Mohammed is directed at the followers of Islam and therefore they should not react quite so violently to 'kufir'/heathens being disrespectful to their founding prophet?

Certainly in the religion I was in there were very many things that were sacred and venerated but the injunction to respect and not defile these things was directed at members, not non-members. It was the generally held belief that if non members disrespected our holy objects/sacred texts it was done out of ignorance and they could not be held responsible for their actions.

RobEire

RobEire wrote:

Surely the ban on depictions of Mohammed is directed at the followers of Islam and therefore they should not react quite so violently to 'kufir'/heathens being disrespectful to their founding prophet?

bluewolf wrote:

I think they're way overreacting, definitely, but a little more respect from the world for their religion would be good.

Certainly in the religion I was in there were very many things that were sacred and venerated but the injunction to respect and not defile these things was directed at members, not non-members. It was the generally held belief that if non members disrespected our holy objects/sacred texts it was done out of ignorance and they could not be held responsible for their actions.

As I said, I think they're overreacting, but the lack of respect various papers are showing to deliberately taunt the muslims is not out of ignorance of how strongly the muslims feels about it (whatever about ignorance of how important it actually is not to depict Muhammed).

BrianCalgary

Does anyone have a link to the cartoons? I haven't even seen them.

UU

BrianCalgary wrote:

Does anyone have a link to the cartoons? I haven't even seen them.

http://www.uriasposten.net/pics/JP-011005-Muhammed-Westerga.jpg
It's probably better if you see the cartoon before making a biased opinion. I doubt even half of the Muslims who are protesting have even seen the cartoon . . . . . .

Dades

BrianCalgary wrote:

Does anyone have a link to the cartoons? I haven't even seen them.

They keep cropping up and being deleted in the Islam forum I think.

The media has a lot to answer for, from the papers that published the cartoons, to the TV networks that fueled the flames with non-stop coverage of protests.

BrianCalgary

I found them. Thanks
http://blog.newspaperindex.com/2005/12/10/un-to-investigate-jyllands-posten-racism/

Not much to them actually.

Here is an article on a parody of Jesus and the reaction:

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=578&id=339792002

Quite a different reaction.

larryone

daithimac wrote:

I was wondering what peoples reactions would be the roles were reversed and it was a arab nation who had printed cartoons of jesus which were insulting to the christian faith. Would the reaction through out Europe be even half as intence. I know in the US the would be a strong reaction from evangelical's but I still don't think It would be as strong as the Musulm reaction in afghanistan

I'd like to point out that Jesus is a prophet of Islam, and that they reject pictorial descriptions of any prophet. So the idea of muslims making a mockery of Jesus is kindof out of the question. Your proposal is inherintly flawed.

robindch

> I'd like to point out that Jesus is a prophet of Islam, and that they
> reject pictorial descriptions of any prophet.

In case anybody's forgotten, Christianity, like any good meme, transmitted the peculiar notion of the heresy of the pictorial representation of the deity (or its representatives) to competing memes, since it was a good source of political and emotional hay. Within Christianity, this destructive phase is generally covered by the term Iconoclasm, and it carried on in dribs and drabs, here and there, until around the 1500's. Unfortunately, Islam, being a meme six centuries younger, is still feeling the heresy of the iconoclastic phase and consequently, a similar hysteria to the European iconoclastic riots of the 16th century. Don't expect these convulsions to die out any time soon.

Religion -- where would we be without it?

John Doe

I resent the general lack of respect shown to the Muslim/Arab world by the West. I also resent suicide bombs. My beef is generally more with lack of respect to Arabs and Muslims than Islam (the first two being people, the latter a concept). Total freedom of expression might be nice, but it clearly doesn't exist anywhere. Sedition is still illegal in Ireland, you know! People have to be responsible for all their actions. Why did no-one weigh up the pros and cons of printing those cartoons? What did anyone gain from them? Apart from the Irish dairy industry of course In a perfect world, no-one would ever insult anyone else. In a slightly less perfect world, everyone would insult everyone else but no-one would care, in fact we'd all have a good giggle. This world is neither, yet.

Suff

I am a Muslim and I would be just as offended of any pictures that mocks Christ.

Time Magazine

Personally I'd burn whatever embassy is responsible.

John Doe

Angry Banana wrote:

Personally I'd burn whatever embassy is responsible.

You can't be serious. How is an embassy responsible for anything? :eek:

daiixi

I'm not religious and while I believe that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, I believe that they have no right to force that upon anyone else.

I personally don't care what and who people make fun of. I choose NOT to be offended by other people, especially people who I don't know.

Time Magazine

John Doe wrote:

You can't be serious. How is an embassy responsible for anything? :eek:

:v: