Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
softwareNerd

Recent Protest About Cartoons

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

There are some protests going on in the middle east about a set of cartoons that were published in European newspapers. I found the cartoons today, and thought others might be interested in seeing them too. They don't appear any more offensive than something Cox and Forkum might draw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw this in someone's AOL profile, and I like the idea. I put it in my profile and I'm posting it on all my messageboards. I encourage you all to do the same.

I stand in solidarity with Denmark. Tell the Islamofascists in the Middle East that you support freedom of the press and that you refuse to give into their demands. Tell them that you are more offended by the decapitation of little girls, the suicide bombings, the shooting of school children in the back. Tell them that you don't care if they're offended, because it's time that we start to publicly call for an end to the vile and medieval practice of jihad. Post the picture contained in this link wherever you can. http://www.uriasposten.net/pics/JP-011005-...ed-Westerga.jpg
Edited by Moose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching Wolf Blitzer on CNN (not a habit, but it was on) and caught a snippet of discussion about CNN's treatment of the cartoons: CNN refused to show them out of respect for Muslims, and blurred them out when they were shown in footage. Wolf had two pundits on, and one of them was pointing out that CNN pixelated the Mohammed cartoons out of fear of offending people, but didn't worry about censoring the recent amputee cartoon which enraged the Joint Chiefs and (likely) offended more Americans than the Mohammed cartoons. The other pundit responded that the amputee cartoon wasn't 'racist' like the Mohammed cartoons were, and I started pulling my hair out yelling at the TV that Islam is not a race. Your thoughts on CNN's censorship of the images?

-Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind, this is the same CNN that refrained from reporting on certain aspects of Sadam's regime, in order to retain access to Iraq (see: http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000057.html ) . In other words, I'm not surprised.

The question, though, is whether CNN (and the larger left-leaning media) is obedient to Islamists out of fear or out of respect?

A partial answer can be gleaned on how they report on other types of tyrants. Are they or not wary of offending them? CNN certainly ahs nothing to fear from Castro, Chavez, et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion of "Peace" Burns Neutral, Liberal Nation's Embassy

"Hundreds of Syrian demonstrators stormed the Danish Embassy in Damascus Saturday and set fire to the building,"

Yes, apparently Allah the "Merciful" has demanded that the members of his "peaceful" religion commit arson in the name of god. Listen; you want to play with the big boys? You want to be a global power? Don't go to war over cartoons. Children fight over comics and drawings and inane, fanciful beliefs - not adults. Yes, that means I am saying that every Islamic zealot is essentially a child. Not far behind is the Catholic Church, it seems...

"In its first official comments on the caricatures, the Vatican... said certain forms of criticism represent an 'unacceptable provocation.'

Obviously wanting to garner some PR with the Islamic world, new Pope Benedict got down on his knees to slobber a good-will hummer on fascist anti-semitic terrorists in the Middle East instead of condemning violent criminal acts against a peaceful nation's embassy; an entity not even remotely responsible for the acts being "protested."

"The right to freedom of thought and expression ... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers," the Vatican said in a statement.

Get this, Vatican -Yes, it does. The right to freedom of thought and expression explicitly entails the right to offend whoever the hell you wish. You have to be "tolerant" of other beliefs and people - you don't have to like it, let alone respect it. I have to "tolerate" religious extremists - in the same manner and for the same reasons as having to "tolerate" someones belief that their spouse is attractive and their children are smart. I don't have to agree, like it, respect it, or even keep quiet about it. I don't care if Mohammed's golden shit is the cure for cancer, I'll defend to the death the right of any person to draw him in any fashion they wish without fear of death threats.

If I have to "tolerate" Muslims and Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses proselytizing their archaic snake-oil, they have to "tolerate" having the very cores of their ideology questioned, prodded, poked, analyzed, caricatured and mocked, in the same manner as any other belief, creed or lifestyle is so viewed. Being a religion don't make you right, nor does it give you carte blanche to demand acceptance from anyone. If Islam and Christianity and Judaism won't accept, say, homosexuals for instance, what in the hell makes them think society has to accept them? As I said, we must certainly tolerate their existence and adherents, but in no way must they be accepted, or for that matter, adhered to by anyone else.

A leader of the Islamic militant Hamas group, which recently swept Palestinian parliamentary elections, told an Italian newspaper on Saturday that the cartoons were an "unforgivable insult" that should be punished by death. "We should have killed all those who offend the Prophet and instead here we are, protesting peacefully," Mahmoud Zahar said."

"We should have killed them," he repeated.

Guess what, Mahmoud my man? We should have killed you. You want recognition and power? Learn to play in the sandbox with the other kids. You don't burn down embassies for cartoons. You don't threaten death to comics for jokes you didn't like. These incidents are not just anti-social behaviors, these are contrary to society period. These are anti-life doctrines, with a magnitude of hate that cannot be fathomed by rational men. If religions cannot recognize the value of life in this earthly plane, if they must devalue and degrade life as they do, they cannot be accepted as guides in morals, ethics or values. If they insist on such anti-life doctrines, they must be condemned wherever they are encountered. Feminists, rise up to the challenge that Islam represents to every right women have - gays, rise up to the challenge of Islams lynch-mob homophobia - free lovers, rise up to the challenge of Islams right-of-Dobson Puritanical dogma - free thinkers, rise to the challenge of Islams suicide-inducing blinders. It's time to think. Are intolerably ignorant, racist, anti-Semitic, fascist, Puritanical chauvinist pigs allowed to burn down buildings, threaten lives and demand sympathy because a comic strip offended them? No. You know it, I know it, the whole rational world knows it. No one else in the world would ever get away with this kind of behavior. You know the last time fascist, racist, ignorant anti-Semites made such egregious violations of human rights? European powers and the Vatican tried to appease those ones too. And the whole world suffered the consequences.

Just be glad the cartoonists didn't display Mohammed in a more fitting outfit - like a Nazi uniform.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

You thought Pat Robertson was an idiot?

behead.jpg

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a hard time believing that that protestor is actually a Muslim. He's probably a counter-protester trying to show the inherent contradiction in the Muslims' position.

It's actually photoshopped - the guy is an actual Muslim protestor, but his sign said "Behead those who insult Islam"; not far off, regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"In its first official comments on the caricatures, the Vatican... said certain forms of criticism represent an 'unacceptable provocation.'
"The right to freedom of thought and expression ... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers," the Vatican said in a statement.

Tsk Tsk, the echoes of the Populorum Progressio continue to haunt my chosen church. May god have mercy upon the Vatican for giving comfort to violent heretics from the evil expressions of rational thinking artists, for the maniacs they are defending will not be so mercyful when the time comes. :nuke:

There are some protests going on in the middle east about a set of cartoons that were published in European newspapers. I found the cartoons today, and thought others might be interested in seeing them too. They don't appear any more offensive than something Cox and Forkum might draw.

I think that St. Thomas Aquinas said it best. "It is requisite for the relaxation of the mind that we make use, from time to time, of playful deeds and jokes."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While there obviously shouldnt be any laws governing which cartoons newspapers can print, the whole thing strikes me as fairly hypocritical. If a newspaper printed inflamatory pictures about the Holocaust for instance, I imagine that the protest from the worlds Jewish community would be fairly significant (especially if it suggested that it didnt happen - this would even be illegal in many European countries). Ditto for a cartoon featuring a stereotype black person with big lips eating fried chicken. Yet only the Muslims are here being criticised for protesting things they find offensive.

Edited by Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this was simple protest over offensive material, you'd be right. But it's not. Criminal prosecution for "blasphemy" is precisely what is being demanded. There people want blood.

In this context, demanding criminal prosecution for blasphemy is no worse, and no better, than demanding prosecution for holocaust denial or racism. Either we have free speech or we dont.

Its illegal for French papers to print cartoons denying the holocaust. The French paper complies with the law. Muslims say they dont want cartoons of Mohammed. The French paper prints them to be controversial, and claims to be protecting free speech. How isnt this hypocrisy?

Edited by Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet only the Muslims are here being criticised for protesting things they find offensive.
In all fairness, that's because they are the ones whining at the moment. When Steve Bell spews out offensive cartoons like:

cond512.jpg

some of us would have cause to be offended. But unlike the Muslims it would seem, we know how to turn the other cheek. If we start yowling about the offensiveness of such caricatures, you should should criticise us for hypocricy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet only the Muslims are here being criticised for protesting things they find offensive.
It would be one thing if Muslims were just protesting peacefully. So far the death toll in Afghanistan stands at 4 due to riots over these cartoons. Embassies were burned in Syria and sacked in Iran and some Islamists are calling for the beheading of the cartoonists. Neo-Nazis and others often deny that the Holocaust ever occured. I don't see any Jews running around burning embassies and I don't see any international media outlets reluctant to cover anti-semitic comments for fear of offending Jews.

I'm curious as to how the prohibition against creating images of Muhammad is supposed to work in the Muslim religion. If you aren't a member of the religion, how can you be expected to abide by its teachings? Aren't we also insulting Islam by not turning toward Mecca and praying 18 times per day? I was under the impression that a Muslim religious dictum like the prohibition against drawing Muhammad was meant for the faithful, not for the infidels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be one thing if Muslims were just protesting peacefully. So far the death toll in Afghanistan stands at 4 due to riots over these cartoons. Embassies were burned in Syria and sacked in Iran and some Islamists are calling for the beheading of the cartoonists. Neo-Nazis and others often deny that the Holocaust ever occured. I don't see any Jews running around burning embassies and I don't see any international media outlets reluctant to cover anti-semitic comments for fear of offending Jews.

I'm curious as to how the prohibition against creating images of Muhammad is supposed to work in the Muslim religion. If you aren't a member of the religion, how can you be expected to abide by its teachings? Aren't we also insulting Islam by not turning toward Mecca and praying 18 times per day? I was under the impression that a Muslim religious dictum like the prohibition against drawing Muhammad was meant for the faithful, not for the infidels.

In the 4th book of the Qu'ran this is pretty much covered, "Convert by the Sword" so they say. The answer is all non-Muslims are either to convert or die. There is no second opinions, nothing else is valid, not being a muslim is blasphemy, case closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the 4th book of the Qu'ran this is pretty much covered, "Convert by the Sword" so they say. The answer is all non-Muslims are either to convert or die. There is no second opinions, nothing else is valid, not being a muslim is blasphemy, case closed.
In the name of accuracy, the central passage is Sura 9:5 "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful". The Dhimmi (legally tolerated non-Muslim) religions included Christianity and Judaism and, later and opportunistically, Zoroastrians and Sikhs. Dhimmi have no right to public religious expression, though they may silently hold their beliefs. This legally subordinate status is sanctioned by Sura 9:29: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." Whether or not Dhimmi are legally obliged to be non-blasphemous, under Quranic law, is hard to say (i.e. I have no clue): however, one important thing to understand is that Islamic law is predicated on the assumption mankind must be universally subjugated by Islam. All lands not subjugated by Islam were seen as barbarian territories and anomalies, beyond the rule of law, so it is not at all clear that the customary protection to Dhimmi would be applicable to those in countries not dominated by Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all known to me, however, what is the difference between being subjugated by Islam visa ve land control versus actually being forcefully converted, it's pretty much similar to the analogy of taking Nazism over Communism, it's the same poison with a different mask. Islam demands intolerance of free, self-determining people, hense it is of no use to me, I say get rid of it.

P.S. - If the Vatican had the Aristotilean clarity that Aquinas had, they would not be defending these people, they are not friends of Christianity or any other established religion, nor are they to be regarded as people of equal political standing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said!

Religion of "Peace" Burns Neutral, Liberal Nation's Embassy

"Hundreds of Syrian demonstrators stormed the Danish Embassy in Damascus Saturday and set fire to the building,"

Yes, apparently Allah the "Merciful" has demanded that the members of his "peaceful" religion commit arson in the name of god. Listen; you want to play with the big boys? You want to be a global power? Don't go to war over cartoons. Children fight over comics and drawings and inane, fanciful beliefs - not adults. Yes, that means I am saying that every Islamic zealot is essentially a child. Not far behind is the Catholic Church, it seems...

"In its first official comments on the caricatures, the Vatican... said certain forms of criticism represent an 'unacceptable provocation.'

Obviously wanting to garner some PR with the Islamic world, new Pope Benedict got down on his knees to slobber a good-will hummer on fascist anti-semitic terrorists in the Middle East instead of condemning violent criminal acts against a peaceful nation's embassy; an entity not even remotely responsible for the acts being "protested."

"The right to freedom of thought and expression ... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers," the Vatican said in a statement.

Get this, Vatican -Yes, it does. The right to freedom of thought and expression explicitly entails the right to offend whoever the hell you wish. You have to be "tolerant" of other beliefs and people - you don't have to like it, let alone respect it. I have to "tolerate" religious extremists - in the same manner and for the same reasons as having to "tolerate" someones belief that their spouse is attractive and their children are smart. I don't have to agree, like it, respect it, or even keep quiet about it. I don't care if Mohammed's golden shit is the cure for cancer, I'll defend to the death the right of any person to draw him in any fashion they wish without fear of death threats.

If I have to "tolerate" Muslims and Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses proselytizing their archaic snake-oil, they have to "tolerate" having the very cores of their ideology questioned, prodded, poked, analyzed, caricatured and mocked, in the same manner as any other belief, creed or lifestyle is so viewed. Being a religion don't make you right, nor does it give you carte blanche to demand acceptance from anyone. If Islam and Christianity and Judaism won't accept, say, homosexuals for instance, what in the hell makes them think society has to accept them? As I said, we must certainly tolerate their existence and adherents, but in no way must they be accepted, or for that matter, adhered to by anyone else.

A leader of the Islamic militant Hamas group, which recently swept Palestinian parliamentary elections, told an Italian newspaper on Saturday that the cartoons were an "unforgivable insult" that should be punished by death. "We should have killed all those who offend the Prophet and instead here we are, protesting peacefully," Mahmoud Zahar said."

"We should have killed them," he repeated.

Guess what, Mahmoud my man? We should have killed you. You want recognition and power? Learn to play in the sandbox with the other kids. You don't burn down embassies for cartoons. You don't threaten death to comics for jokes you didn't like. These incidents are not just anti-social behaviors, these are contrary to society period. These are anti-life doctrines, with a magnitude of hate that cannot be fathomed by rational men. If religions cannot recognize the value of life in this earthly plane, if they must devalue and degrade life as they do, they cannot be accepted as guides in morals, ethics or values. If they insist on such anti-life doctrines, they must be condemned wherever they are encountered. Feminists, rise up to the challenge that Islam represents to every right women have - gays, rise up to the challenge of Islams lynch-mob homophobia - free lovers, rise up to the challenge of Islams right-of-Dobson Puritanical dogma - free thinkers, rise to the challenge of Islams suicide-inducing blinders. It's time to think. Are intolerably ignorant, racist, anti-Semitic, fascist, Puritanical chauvinist pigs allowed to burn down buildings, threaten lives and demand sympathy because a comic strip offended them? No. You know it, I know it, the whole rational world knows it. No one else in the world would ever get away with this kind of behavior. You know the last time fascist, racist, ignorant anti-Semites made such egregious violations of human rights? European powers and the Vatican tried to appease those ones too. And the whole world suffered the consequences.

Just be glad the cartoonists didn't display Mohammed in a more fitting outfit - like a Nazi uniform.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

You thought Pat Robertson was an idiot?

behead.jpg

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In all fairness, that's because they are the ones whining at the moment. When Steve Bell spews out offensive cartoons like:

some of us would have cause to be offended. But unlike the Muslims it would seem, we know how to turn the other cheek. If we start yowling about the offensiveness of such caricatures, you should should criticise us for hypocricy.

I didnt imply 'people' to mean 'the readers of this internet forum' - I was talking about the world in general. A lot of people who are condemning the Muslim reaction would probably react in similar ways if the cartoons happened to violate one of their personal taboos (eg, the Holocaust, racism, whatever). I wouldnt expect most posters here to support cartoon censorship (although given this thread on THE FORUM, who knows), but I think most non-Objectivists would under the right circumstance.

It would be one thing if Muslims were just protesting peacefully. So far the death toll in Afghanistan stands at 4 due to riots over these cartoons. Embassies were burned in Syria and sacked in Iran and some Islamists are calling for the beheading of the cartoonists.
This is both true, and important. However for me, the most important issue is how people in the West are reacting, rather than those in Islamic countries. The debate in Europe is being framed in terms of whether governments should allow the press to print whatever it likes. But this construction is misleading, because newspapers DONT have the right to print whatever they like - for instance, holocaust denial is illegal in France, and god knows what would happen if a mainstream British paper printed something explicitly racist against blacks. Generally speaking, there is no free press in the strict sense - the debate is really over which particular groups of people should be protected by the government. Currently, Jews and blacks are protected while Muslims arent.

Neo-Nazis and others often deny that the Holocaust ever occured.
And in France, they get arrested. Edited by Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the 4th book of the Qu'ran this is pretty much covered, "Convert by the Sword" so they say. The answer is all non-Muslims are either to convert or die. There is no second opinions, nothing else is valid, not being a muslim is blasphemy, case closed.

I dont particularly want to defend Islam but assuming that you are talking about the 'sword verse', this has been refuted many many times over the last few years. The passage in question comes from a speech given by a general to his soldiers before a battle - it is not intended as a contextless statement about how to treat non-believers (compare to an American general telling his troops to 'kill all the germans' before a battle in WW2).

Anyway, you cant judge a religion by its holy books alone - you have to look at how these books are being interpreted by a particular religious community. The Old Testement of the Bible is horrific for instance, but you cant really use it to derive a picture of Christianity because everyone ignores it these days (or interprets it in a benign way).

Edited by Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...