on cartoons

[ThomasGR]

This discussion shall be about Danish cartoons.
I have been waiting for a long time for such a topic to be discussed here,
And since I couldn’t wait anymore, I’ll make the first move.
People of higher intellects are visiting this site;
So I have a special consciousness for your opinions.

[Deudeditus]

It's a bit overblown. You don't see me burning down buildings because of the Family Guy episode that depicted Jesus as a dude doing 'disappearing finger' tricks while humming ridiculous circus music.

[Kopio]

This discussion shall be about Danish cartoons.

I'd much rather talk about Krispy Kreme cartoons, or even perhaps those of the Bagel Variety.

People of higher intellects are visiting this site

Higher than what? That sounds like a very relative statement to me!

In all seriousness though....I wasn't aware that Danish Cartoons are big. I've watch my fair share of Japanimation, but I don't think I've ever come across a Danish one. What are they like, and where do you even find them?

[ThomasGR]

Higher than what? That sounds like a very relative statement to me!

It is a relative statement, of course. One may it interpret in different ways, like people with higher IQ than barbecue, or higher intellect than mine.

where do you even find them?

A very good collection one may find here http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm.
My opinion is that all the case is overestimated and we have an overreaction from the Muslim world. In Europe people are used to swear at Gods just too often, make lot of fun and caricatures about Jesus and Mary or Pope, something Muslims aren't able to understand.

[Kasper]

Seems like many are reacting with the usual western ignorance of other cultures. For centuries it has been customary to depict Jezus and God in various manners, naturally starting very religiously but with the rise of science and the decline of faith, we are now used to all kinds of depictions of Jezus and God.

It is very different for muslims. They continue to hold it a violation of divine law (if that means anything to you) to depict the profet Mohammed. So to depict him at all is very upsetting to a lot of muslims; then certainly to see him depicted in the way of the now infamous cartoons understandably enrages them.

That said, there is of course little doubt that with the current tensions between the christian and muslim 'worlds' (as if there are two), things are being blown out of proportion.

As for freedom of expression / opinion etc., I will only repeat that there is a difference between expressing one's opinion and yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. The Danish cartoonist may have been ignorant of the sentiments he would arouse when he drew them, but for other papers to continue to publish them is purely driven by the almighty dollar (who doesn't want to see these cartoons?) and has nothing to do with freedom of anything.


In my opinion that is, of course.

[Carola]

Whilst I respect and completely agree with the right to free speech, I do not think that offering a deliberate insult to people's deeply held beliefs is anything but that - designed to be deeply insulting. No newspaper editor would be unaware of those sensibilities any more than they would be "unaware" that child pornography would be greeted with public outcry (and a police raid) in 99.9% of the world.

[Señor Boethius]

And it seems like a few Muslims are overreating with their usual ignorance of Western culture.

Should we no longer have cartoons portraying delicious bacon or cold beer that Muslims might find offensive? Should we even avoid the human form, which is a common prejudice in Muslim art?

Voltaire? Diderot? Where are you?? What could Monty Python do with this situation?

Overall, I'm just really sick of all the news time given to this, and the fact that every time someone burns a flag, CNN seems to be there. Where do all the Danish flags come from anyway?

[Paul]

Hi All,

In the '90s I was deeply offended by Serrano's "Piss Christ" and Olifi's "The Holy Virgin Mary". Most of us would be offended by the depiction of the descration of anyone we loved, whether or not they are religious figures. Hence I understand that a Moslem would take offence at the cartoons.

That said, I would still draw attention to these points:

a. I didn't respond to Serrano and Olifi's filth by burning anything or killing anyone; nor did millions of other Christians.
b. The Arab press routinely portrays Jews in hateful caricature.
c. The liberal press that lauded the aforementioned filth and railed against those who objected to supporting it with taxpayer dollars, now cries out for sensitivity to the feelings of Moslems.

How now?

Cordially,

Paul

[annis]

In Europe people are used to swear at Gods just too often, make lot of fun and caricatures about Jesus and Mary or Pope, something Muslims aren't able to understand.

This is the greatest disaster of the whole affair. Because plenty of muslims are able to understand this perfectly well. Some have gone to jail over it. The problem with being a moderate is that the marches are so bland — "we're here! we hope we're not trespassing! can't we find some common ground?!" — no one is trampled, nothing is lit on fire, so you never hit the front page.

The disaster is that some Salafi radicals, having mastered the modern political techniques of the careful PR-offensive, have manufactured the entire thing (Rent-a-Riot ABCs, Amir Taheri). They have lied freely and often. The cartoons that were actually published in the Danish paper — as distinct from the fabrications muslims were told were published — even appeared in Egyptian newspapers in 2005 (I would skip the comments on that article).

We're worrying here about the responses of radicals, not the whole of the muslim world.

But for me the greatest disaster of all of this is being lectured about how important free speech is so long as we don't actually use it. It is utterly absurd to claim that people's ideas must be free from challenge or even insult.

"There is no God but God, and Muhammad is his prophet." "Have you heard the good news? Jesus is risen." These statements are mutually incompatible. To the believers of their respective faiths, they may even offensive. For anyone to claim that the entire world has to bow to everyone's personal religious sensibilities is to lock off your own right to challenge people on their ideas.

A religion is an idea, or at least a set of ideas. It is nothing at all like a race. Nonetheless, I do see how these cartoons add to immigration tensions, and PZ Myers' view is nearly identical to my own, and better phrased. But right now I think we've been played by radicals.

I intend to blaspheme freely and widely. How could I avoid it, with dozens of faiths and hundreds of sects? No one gets a special pass.

[wongallo]

I think that most people have it completely wrong. Yes, according to Islamic Law it would be a violation to depict the Prophet Muhammad in any form of drawing or sculpture. However, Muslims themselves have depicted him in various different centuries. Most recent of which was during the Turkish Ottoman Empire which had several paintings of him found in the Museum of Turkish and Islamic art in Istanbul. The problem lies in the fact that they have used classical orientalism to depict the Prophet Muhammad as a blood thirsty terrorist encouraging suicide bombings and murder. I think this point for some reason or another has completely fallen over most.

Yes freedom of speech is important, but how is it that the leader of an entire religion constituting over a billion people is depicted in a stereotypical xenophobic way that encourages further stereotyping and dehumanizing of Muslims as savages.

Of course! Muslims are savages that are unable to understand the west or concepts of democracy or freedom of speech and likewise. Weren’t Greek and Latin mostly reintroduced to Europe through efforts of Muslims in Baghdad and Muslim Spain several centuries ago? Or is this a myth since obviously they are savages unable to understand Greek and Latin, let alone translate it, write commentary on it, and debate about it.
In most Muslim dominated countries in areas like Africa , South East Asia and South Asia there was no violence, no burning of buildings, just protesting.

How come most of the violence happened in the Arab world, which has a history of colonization and abuse from several western powers? This is of course in no way to justify their behavior but it does point out that it is a result of a culmination of many different historical factors, and cannot simply be reduced to the result of Danish Cartoons. This is a crucial point to understand. Simplistic comments like “Muslims don’t understand the west and freedom of speech? do not give justice to an immensely complicated situation that can be triggered by anything.

Dante’s Inferno has a scene in which the Prophet Muhammad is in hell, but there is no historical account of any sort of violence in the last several centuries because of it. Why?
Oh yes! Why would there be? Muslims are savages that didn’t read Dante so how would they know, even though it was translated into Arabic.

The problem is the depiction of the Prophet as a terrorist which culminates in more ignorant observations that of course Islam is a backward religion filled with blood thirsty animals waiting to blow up anything that is good, western and civilized because they just don’t get it. When Islamic Law itself would condemn those people that perpetrated violence in the Arab world. Criticism and questions are very, very important but to define a people as terrorists and define their Prophet as one as well, is freedom of speech, without a doubt, but a very ill conceived use of it. Especially, when ideas and images are what group and define the way an entire people are looked upon by others.

I think that the violence has to be condemned by every fair person, but the anger not the violence is understandable. If Pope Benedict XVI as Catholicism highest living authority was depicted as child molesting, adulterous drunkard, although there have been instances of child molesting in the Catholic Church, like there have been Muslim terrorist, naturally Catholics would be angry as well.

[GlottalGreekGeek]

It is not even absolutely forbidden in Islam to depict the Prophet. I have a book with some picture from medieval Persian manuscripts which show Muhummad. There were many paintings of Muhummad from early Islam which were later partially covered up by later Muslims who had changed their interpretation of the Koran - I do not know the details about what the Koran says and what the interpretations are. However, I know in a (general) sense that there is no fundamental prohibition of depicting Muhummad in Islam.

I agree with those who say that the radicals were looking for something to be offended by, not the other way around. Compared to the vile anti-Jewish crap radical (and unfortunately, some non-radical) Muslims produce, I see the Danish cartoons as a mere error (though I have not seen them myself).

And of course Paul has to go bash the liberals If he believes something, he always has to find some liberals, whether they be mainstream or obscure radicals, who disagree.

[nostos]

The now-infamous cartoon can be seen (as always thanks to Wikipedia!) here, for anyone who hasn't had the pain (because no matter what your beliefs, it's pain by now) of witnessing it for themselves. Judging by Wikipedia's scholarly reputation , I'm not sure if this is the real thing (but I think so).

[Chris Weimer]

One blog I've been following for information on the cartoons is Gypsy Scholar. I'll post the relevant links below.

Images of Muhammed
Images of Muhammed - Revisited
Images of Muhammed - Response
Speaking of Muhammed's Image
Images of Muhammed Controversy

Enjoy the reading!

[Paul]

And of course Paul has to go bash the liberals If he believes something, he always has to find some liberals, whether they be mainstream or obscure radicals, who disagree.

Yes, of course.

Really, very funny Miss G-cubed. I enjoyed the lampooning.

Perhaps in another thread you can explain why the left is so selective in its assertions of the need for sensitivity.

Actually, don't bother. I wouldn't want to separate you from the ranks of apoplectic Bay Area residents working feverishly on Bush's impeachment.

Cordially,

Paul

[Bert]

Many times Christian beliefs are belittled if not reviled.
For instance; I find jokes like the -Peter at the pearly gate type, a belittling of the seriousness of heaven and hell.
That said, it does not inspire me to commit acts of violence as a response.

I also wonder if the radical Muslims, who are guilty of these outrageous acts of violence, can justify their actions on the basis of the Koran.

[Señor Boethius]

The whole point of freedom of speech is that sometimes you are going to be offended by stupidity, ignorance and moronicitiness. Free speech exists to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Sometimes your feelings will be hurt; sometimes you will be angry, but that does not give you the right to burn and destroy things.
Yes, it is a minority of Muslims who are doing this. Yes, Islam does mean peace, and as long as you're not a Christian or a Jew or a Zoroastrian or a humanist or a neo-Platonist or a woman, I'm sure living a life in an Islamic society is peaceful, especially if you don't have to do the dishes all the time.
By the way, how did Islam spread so quickly in its infancy? Was it by preaching love and peace and placing flowers on the swords of their enemies?? Ha ha, good one.
Islam is backwards, but it is not unique. Anyone who puts faith before reason is backwards.

And now a quote to offend:
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
--Denis Diderot

Replace priest with whatever religious leader you want.

[GlottalGreekGeek]

Perhaps in another thread you can explain why the left is so selective in its assertions of the need for sensitivity.

The same reason you have to be selective about which liberals you quote when you claim they are against [insert issue] which you support. For any political idea/belief/whatever, you can find a liberal who preaches it, whether it's pacism, ecoterrorism, free markets, planned economies, free speech, censorship, anarchy or totalitarianism.

EDIT : Of course you can't separate me from "apopletic Bay Area resdients". Like I said, Paul *has to* bash liberals, not *chooses* to bash liberals. You have no free will. You don't have a choice in the matter. And, as a liberal, I feel sympathetic for those who have no choice in their political sentiments. I even have limited sympathy for suicide bombers who are brainwashed, and therefore cannot choose their political sentiments. Being a moderate, I draw the line at feeling sympathetic for those who brainwash the suicide bombers.

EDIT 2 : Of course, I have far more sympathy for you Paul, than brainwashed suicide bombers, since as far as I know you haven't blow yourself up yet to kill a few innocent bystanders.

[Lucus Eques]

It's a bit overblown. You don't see me burning down buildings because of the Family Guy episode that depicted Jesus as a dude doing 'disappearing finger' tricks while humming ridiculous circus music.

Classic.

Higher than what? That sounds like a very relative statement to me!

Why Kopio, surely you recognize the comparative absolute when you see it.


Just to note, there is no Quranic or other tenet of Islam that holds that no image of Mohammed or other religious figures be illustrated.

Additionally, as we have seen from the actual cartoons, they do not insult Islam as a whole but instead make fun of the hypocracy of extremist Islamist terrorists and fanatics (such as the one where Mohammed's hat is actually a bomb). And since they are largely extremists and fanatics and, indeed, terrorists who are making the loud complaint about this depiction, is there any wonder why? As we have seen from the unwarranted responses, it seems the cartoons were all too poignant.

Paul's points are well to be noted, as well as Will's apt explanation. I also appreciate the Dogma reference, Will, if indeed it was one.

[Deudeditus]

The whole point of freedom of speech is that sometimes you are going to be offended by stupidity, ignorance and moronicitiness.

But what if one does'nt actually believe in freedom of speech? (as some muslim and christian extremists do not) Why should said individual be forced to abide by someone elses 'false' ideals. Especially when it would insult one's religion and quasi-deified prophet and therefore, indirectly, one's deity. Doesn't that person have a right to discard such false ideals and demonic philosophy as freedom of speech? Or should freedom of speech be imposed on everyone? just asking.

Merp. (dogma quote)

-Jon

[Michaelyus]

I certainly find it quite offensive, but I cetainly also would not destroy buildings over it. I think that though freedom of speech can be imposed, people have a right to faith, ideas, ideals.

The faculty of ignorance is one that is widely encouraged, I feel, in the "West", where there is quite a lot of such insensitivity but by no means all cultures. The "Islamic one" is one of those where ignorance is not. I don't think they are told to "brush off" these offences, and they probably couldn't. I couldn't bear an attack on my ideals. It would be as destructively horrible as that most Muslims would have felt.

But I think that this destruction is abominable, and that they should stop at once. For if they do, the point of the offense will be affirmed, and they wouldn't like that, will they? So it is in their best interests not to continue.

I resign myself to "backwardness".

[annis]

Doesn't that person have a right to discard such false ideals and demonic philosophy as freedom of speech? Or should freedom of speech be imposed on everyone?

He's free to discard them for himself. Not everyone else. If that's imposition, so be it.

[Paul]

Perhaps in another thread you can explain why the left is so selective in its assertions of the need for sensitivity.

The same reason you have to be selective about which liberals you quote when you claim they are against [insert issue] which you support. For any political idea/belief/whatever, you can find a liberal who preaches it, whether it's pacism, ecoterrorism, free markets, planned economies, free speech, censorship, anarchy or totalitarianism.

EDIT : Of course you can't separate me from "apopletic Bay Area resdients". Like I said, Paul *has to* bash liberals, not *chooses* to bash liberals. You have no free will. You don't have a choice in the matter. And, as a liberal, I feel sympathetic for those who have no choice in their political sentiments. I even have limited sympathy for suicide bombers who are brainwashed, and therefore cannot choose their political sentiments. Being a moderate, I draw the line at feeling sympathetic for those who brainwash the suicide bombers.

EDIT 2 : Of course, I have far more sympathy for you Paul, than brainwashed suicide bombers, since as far as I know you haven't blow yourself up yet to kill a few innocent bystanders.

It is hard to divine your frame of mind from your words. But I am guessing that you weren't smiling when you wrote these paragraphs. Given this, and the fact that I am old enough to be your father, it is best if I simply withdraw from this conversation.

But before I run screaming into the offices of the New York Times and detonate myself, might I suggest that you work on developing your sense of humor? It will serve you well at college. Your peers there will also be glad of it.

Cordially,

Paul

P.S. Ka-Boom.

[GlottalGreekGeek]

It is hard to divine your frame of mind from your words. But I am guessing that you weren't smiling when you wrote these paragraphs ... might I suggest that you work on developing your sense of humor? It will serve you well at college. Your peers there will also be glad of it.

Cordially,

Paul

P.S. Ka-Boom.

Actually, I was giggling when I was writing those paragraphs.

I know I don't have the world's greatest humour, but if I will ever have one I have to stumble along the way, don't I? Anyway, I concur, we can withdraw from here.

The faculty of ignorance is one that is widely encouraged, I feel, in the "West", where there is quite a lot of such insensitivity but by no means all cultures. The "Islamic one" is one of those where ignorance is not. I don't think they are told to "brush off" these offences, and they probably couldn't. I couldn't bear an attack on my ideals. It would be as destructively horrible as that most Muslims would have felt.

Ummm. This does not make sense to me, especially the first two sentences. Could you clarify?