134 replies to this topic

[Flop]

Disclaimer: I contemplated for a while whether or not to start this topic, since it is a potential flame pit. If it turns into that I'll close it, assuming another mod or admin doesn't beat me to it. Just a fair warning.

That said, I suspect some people may take offense at my views on this, although I hope not. If you do take offense I apologize in advance.

Anyway, on to the topic at hand. I'm sure most of you have heard about the Muhammed drawings by now. If not you can check this page on wikipedia.

I must admit that the more I think about this, and the more the situation develops, the more ridiculous I find it. How anyone can get that upset over a few drawings is beyond me. Of course, part of the problem is that a lot of people just don't realise how offending this is to a great part of the worlds muslims. Another problem is that a great many groups, governments and indicidual people have tried to use this situation to further their own agenda, and now it has gotten out of hand (although obviously the agenda of some groups are furthered by this, too).

Four months ago, when the drawings were first published my impression was (and still is) that Jyllandsposten was just trying to score some cheap points by further humiliating the Danish muslims, as part of the big immigrant discussion that has been going on in Denmark for the past 6-7 years (and which has become increasingly insulting and demeaning). But even recognising that they did it mainly to provoke and to sell more papers, and that the drawings were in poor taste, I still defend their right to draw them and print them. They're not subjects to the laws of Islam (or any other religion), so why should they adhere to those laws? I've heard several muslims on tv claim that if the drawings had been of Jesus or the pope, they would have been punished. That's clearly untrue (since such drawings are regularly published in Danish newspapers), and shows a complete lack of understanding on the part of the speaker.

I have to say that islam has fallen in my regard after this. As an atheist I've never really held any religion in high regard, but I've always had the impression that the worst face of most religions is usually only shown through the fundamentalists and fanatics. However, I'm having a very, very difficult time hearing the voices of the moderates through the screaming of what seems to be the majority of the muslims of the world. I'm well aware that the moderates always have a harder time being heard than the guys who threaten with death and destruction, because of the media value, but even those who say they're moderates and who are clearly trying to distance themselves from the violence say that drawing Muhammed is indefensible and should be punished. I realise that there are degrees of freedom of speach, and that not everything is allowed. Paradoxically, a lot of what I've seen from certain countries in the middle east would be illegal in Denmark, such as burning a foreign nations flag, or denying the citizens of any specific religion, race or nationality the right to shop in your store (not to mention torching embassies and issuing fatwas). But in my opinion there must be a limit to constraining the freedom of speech and I don't like the idea of any single group of people to set that limit according to their sensitivities. Sometimes people will be hurt by what's said in the press and elsewhere, in fact if everything that might hurt someone was censored out, there would be very little with any substance and relevance left.

Anyway, I'm rambling on, what do you guys think?

[A. J. Raffles]

To be quite honest, I'm getting tired of all this fuss, and it annoys me that this whole business seems to have been brought on deliberately. If all those other papers hadn't been so silly to try to make a point by reprinting those cartoons, the situation would never have become as heated. Or maybe that's what they wanted, who knows? After all, burning embassies make excellent news.

About the actual issue: I wouldn't consider myself particularly religious, but I can't say I approve of blasphemy, because if nothing else it's lack of respect for other people's beliefs. However, it isn't a justification for setting embassies on fire. Why can't they just protest, make the papers apologise and have done with it?

[Flop]

I'm pretty sure you're right that it's been brought on deliberately, but not only by the papers. A Danish group of muslims spent the last four months travelling around the middle east showcasing the drawings (plus three drawings no one knows where came from, which apparantly are a lot worse than the ones that were printed). I also think some people in the middle east have had an interest in using this case to draw peoples attention.

However, I'm not sure I agree with you about blasphemy. Blasphemy can be a lot of things. As an atheist I don't believe there is a god, and I don't mind saying so. However, when I do, I break the second commandment (Edit: I just checked and realised that it's the first commandment. My bad.), which can be considered blasphemy. To turn it around, when any religious person says that there is a god, he disregards my beliefs (not that I really care). Most religions disregard each other beliefs in different ways. Of course, I don't like the idea of people going out of the way to step on each others beliefs just to do it, but I don't like the idea of legislating against it. The end of that road is a society where you can't criticize religion, as I see it.

[DakaSha]

ah thanks flop

no really the second paragraph was a civil way of saying what at least part of what i believe. when somebody "forbids" you to speak out against their religion they are basicaly enforcing it upon you.

i dont think its "nice" to go around saying somebodys religion is false.. but i should have the right to do so. if a group of people are allowed to go on national television and say that they are right i as a single person should have the right to say i dont believe they are. there are people of certain religions who will knock on your door and wake you up at 6 in the morning to "convert" you... but im not allowed to openly say that i think they are well... nuts!

if i say: "Jesus or Muhammed were crazy." its blasphemy.
if they say: "Your going to hell for not believing." its religion and must be tolerated.

Now:
if some danish guy wants to draw something... and the danish newspapers want to print it... who are these people to burn down buildings because of it? why cant they just say: "Well their going to hell... to bad for them" and let it be?

its bad enough most of the islam nations force religion upon their own people but they sure as all heck are not going to enforce anything upon me(be it what im aloud to say, draw, worship or anything).

edit: btw im probably an antogonist. the church of satan is pretty cool too... really read up on it they're funny but id never call myself a satanist so antogonist is fine

[Puffin]

Ok... I have rather strong opinions on this matter, but I don't have time right now to write everything I'd like to write.

From what I've heard, The New Testament forbids people to draw Jesus, God, and all those guys. Muslims forbid to draw Muhammed, and all the prophets. That includes Jesus (they believe in Jesus, just not as Messiah). Ok, so Muhammed is higher "ranked" than Jesus for them, but why haven't they reacted at all over the hundreds- even thousands of paintings and drawings made of Jesus?

Ok I have to go now, I'll write more when I come home. What I wrote above is just a thoguht that recently popped my mind, I might be wrong about it...

[Juni Ori]

Flop, I'm strongly there with you. Agree almost if not 100%

Puffin, gotta love you, I was just about to question the same.

Anyways, I didn't dare to start this topic, but good to see that it can be handled in a civilized way (so far).

[A. J. Raffles]

Flop, on Feb 6 2006, 01:20 AM, said:

However, I'm not sure I agree with you about blasphemy. Blasphemy can be a lot of things. As an atheist I don't believe there is a god, and I don't mind saying so. However, when I do, I break the second commandment (Edit: I just checked and realised that it's the first commandment. My bad.), which can be considered blasphemy. To turn it around, when any religious person says that there is a god, he disregards my beliefs (not that I really care). Most religions disregard each other beliefs in different ways. Of course, I don't like the idea of people going out of the way to step on each others beliefs just to do it, but I don't like the idea of legislating against it. The end of that road is a society where you can't criticize religion, as I see it.

I think you misunderstood me there. Blasphemy is something stronger than just saying "There is no God" (or "Oh yes, there is"). A bit of tolerance never hurt anybody, and that includes religious nutcases as well as everybody else.

Daka said:

i dont think its "nice" to go around saying somebodys religion is false.. but i should have the right to do so. if a group of people are allowed to go on national television and say that they are right i as a single person should have the right to say i dont believe they are. there are people of certain religions who will knock on your door and wake you up at 6 in the morning to "convert" you... but im not allowed to openly say that i think they are well... nuts!

This isn't about people who come to your door and want to sell The Watchtower (you'd probably get rid of them most quickly by buying the bleeding journal), though. It's about a minimal amount of courtesy towards others - even if they may not always return it. Your right to free speech may allow you to say "Jesus or Muhammed were crazy", but why do so when you know you're going to offend people by saying it? And I never said people running around saying "You're going to hell for not believing" are in the right; they're being just as bloody irritating, but again, what's to be gained from confronting those people's beliefs head on?

Daka said:

Now:
if some danish guy wants to draw something... and the danish newspapers want to print it... who are these people to burn down buildings because of it? why cant they just say: "Well their going to hell... to bad for them" and let it be?

Well... that's a slightly naive way of looking at it. I think it's extremely unlikely that this Danish guy "wanted to draw something" and it just happened to turn into a cartoon of Muhammad. He wanted to make a point, and so did the paper when it printed those cartoons. As for the burning down bit, I certainly disapprove of the violence involved, but that doesn't mean I can't understand why they won't just let it be and say "Oh well, they're going to hell for this". It's just a matter of pushing the right buttons to get someone seriously upset. In your case, for example, that would be someone bashing rap and hip-hop music while at the same time making it blatantly obvious that he knows nothing about it.

Still, I believe those people who are burning down the buildings were manipulated into doing so by other people who see things much calmer, and that's what annoys me most. And we're being manipulated in turn through all those news reports on how violent Islam is. It's all just so... cheap.

Puffin said:

From what I've heard, The New Testament forbids people to draw Jesus, God, and all those guys.

Huh? Do you have the exact passage??

[Tulac]

Well if anyone has ever watch South Park, you could've seen there intolerance twards pretty much everything (especially Jesus), but I saw no riots or murders (yes they murdered a caholic priest in Turkey) or anything else...
My opinion about the Arab world is very low, I think they are above all hypocrate and extremely primitive...
Don't get me wrong I have nothing against Muslims, I know a couple of them but those who have lived on European soil for quite some time, and are very moderate and peaceful, and reacted on this mater probably like the Christian or any other church would...
Now the biggest problem in the Arab world is ineducation and de secularism, meaning that the church can brainwash people easily just like Christians did in the medieval...
So in that regard pretty much the whole Arab world is very intolerant, towards other religions(anyone who ever visited an Arab/Middle East country can confirm you that) and while truly their feelings were offended it was nowhere that big of deal that it is now presented, the problem should've stayed local in Denmark...
The best example was here, there was this cartoon character that made fun of catholic priests and religion and the Church protested (with papers there were no protests on the streets), and the character was changed to ridicule catholics less, although he still ridiculed them...
My point is that this never got known anywhere in the world( no no one burned Croatians flags, or staged massed protests), although it was pretty much more offending to catholics than one single caricature in the bloody newspapers was to Muslims...
So my only explanation can be the utter primitivism and fanaticism of the most Arab world, and if anyone can deny this then please do...

[BeefontheBone]

AFAIK it's just Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) who you're not allowed to represent (specifically his face). I'm pretty much with AJ on this (surprise, surprise) - the whole thing, particularly the reprinting, was specifically done in order to kick up a stink, and was aggravated, as Daka said, by a few fundamentalists wandering around getting people worked up about it, but the whole reaction is hugely disproportionate.
I know a number of muslims, although I've not talked to any of them about this, and they do seem to be quite a long way from rioting and taking to the streets with flaming pitchforks and banners inciting acts of terrorism (what the hell does a Danish newspaper have to do with the rest of the world, anyway?)

@Tulac: That's not really a valid example, though, since Christians aren't forbidden from making images of Jesus (Catholics love 'em!) whereas it's rather important to Muslims.

[Tulac]

Quote

That's not really a valid example, though, since Christians aren't forbidden from making images of Jesus (Catholics love 'em!) whereas it's rather important to Muslims.

Oh come on, I don't think it's valid to represent Jesus like he was represented in South Park, like the episode when he boxed with Satan, or the episode when they showed God as a flying rat creature...
You really believe that that isn't important to Christians, but I think they learned one thing and that is tolerance...
I mean these are obviously double standards you're giving to Muslims, and I'm not really sure why...

[BeefontheBone]

Yes, that was offensive (not to mention hilarious), and there were protests about it. My point had nothing to do with double standards - the vast majority of Muslims are intelligent, tolerant people who regard the extremists with the same contempt as the rest of us do. The point was that the papers in question deliberately set out to kick the ants' nest knowing full well that tensions are high in the muslim world at present and trying to score a cheap anti-immigration shot with no thought for the overall consequences of their actions.
Marching around invoking the July 7th bombings is clearly incitement to violence and a ridiculous overreaction, but I can understand why people are upset at having their beliefs knowingly and gratuitously mocked.

[Puffin]

@AJ: No I'm sorry, it's just what I've heard. It could be bullsh*t.
@Beef: They can't draw any of the prophets. I saw an interview to the guy who's the top muslim guy in Iceland, that's what he said. No Muhammed, no Jesus, no prophets at all.
Which kinda makes me wonder why the muslims haven't freaked out before... Just walk through an art museum and you'll see plenty of paintings of jesus.


What I think is really sad, is that Denmark has been very open for immigrants. I can't name any single country who accepts as many immigrant and fugitives as Denmark does. Like Flop said, there were those Danish muslims who were actually encouraging other muslims to freak out to this!! Ok, they might be born Danes but not immigrants.. But there are (correct me if I'm wrong, Flop) loads of muslims who couldnt' live in their countries, or wanted a better life, that moved to Denmark.  Now dont' get me wrong, nothing wrong with immigrants in general. I'll be an immigrant there myself soon. But when they thank for themselves like this... it's the rudest thing I've ever heard of.

Also correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but Dannebrog (the Danish flag) is a pretty important thing for most Danes. Or at least that's what they teach in Danish here. Burning Dannebrog (which nota bene has one of the main symbols of Christianity on it) is a really serious thing. I personally would say, but that's just my opinion, more serious than portraiting Muhammed.

Now muslim leaders are encouraging muslims to slaugther danes and those who publish the drawings. So.. a silly drawing of a guy long dead is worth slaugthering for???? Now that's seriously messed up.

Few days ago, text messages went between many danes, telling them to meet at some square to burn the Coran. It didn't happen. Muslims used that as an excuse to burn flags and embassies!!!! All right, so burning the Coran is a pretty bad thing. That's for sure. BUT THEY DIDN'T DO IT, NOW DID THEY? That's the worst excuse I've ever heard. "Hey, they threatened to burn the Coran but didn't, so we should burn their flag and embassies!! Oh and let's just slaughter them all while we're at it".

I saw those drawings.. They're silly. They're not funny, they're not serious, and they're not worth reacting like this over. No matter how illegal it is to draw this guy. It's just silly.



Now if I have said some wrong facts, please correct me.

[Tulac]

BeefontheBone, on Feb 6 2006, 11:25 AM, said:

But I can understand why people are upset at having their beliefs knowingly and gratuitously mocked.

Me too, but the problem is, why are they globally upset? I mean why is this a global problem, it should've remained local in Denmark...
And the way Muslim leaders reacted I can't really see the tolerance in that, you obviously know very little about Arab world(I myself haven't been there but I have a cousin that worked on the oil rigs in Syria so he told me stories), Muslim that live in the west for several generations have obviously accepted some of the western culture, so they are much different and a minority in overall Muslim culture...

[Puffin]

Tulac, on Feb 6 2006, 10:40 AM, said:

Me too, but the problem is, why are they globally upset? I mean why is this a global problem, it should've remained local in Denmark...

Do you mean that only muslims in denmark should be upset?

Like Flop said, there were danish muslims who travelled around showing the pics, to get the others angry.

And not only Jyllandsposten has published this. Die Welt (probably German), a French newspaper, DV in Iceland, Norwegian papers, Italian, Polish, The Jerusalem Times (think that's the name) published it too, etc etc etc. Which is actually a really stupid thing, it only makes them more upset than they were before. And some muslim leaders are now telling people to slaughter all the people in the countries who publish it.


One thing I find really silly... They take a dummy, dress it up in western clothes, claim it to be Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and put it on fire... I  l o l'd

[Tulac]

Other newspapers only published it later(as a sign of solidarity), so the problem was local for what 3 months...