Recent Protest About Cartoons

[dark_unicorn]

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.

[gags]

Now we’re seeing a bit of “tit for tat”.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060207/ap_on_…HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[edward_j_williamson]

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?

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

[Hal]

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.

[Hal]

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).

[dark_unicorn]

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).

Your point is well taken, although certain splinter sects. of Christianity here in the States keep a literal interpretation of those verses divorced from any sense of history (mostly due to the practice of Sola Scriptura, which is an erronius practice by the original Christian standard).

The problem is that most of the so-called “Moderates” in the islamic world are not doing much in the way of trying to defend their beliefs from these fundamentalists, which leads me to the conclusion that they are probably not the majority in that region.

Whether the Qu’ran specifies that the “Convert by the Sword” speech is true [i do find it disturbing that a religion that claims to be peaceful would put a military leader ahead of a man of peace (Mohammad/Christ)], most of these terrorists take that saying literally as a call for all muslims to be in a state of Jihad until the world is subsumed under their ideology.

I do find it interesting to note that the “72 virgins” thing originated with an old Islamic cult. from the Middle Ages called the Hashshasheen, which was founded on the principle that Islam supposedly needed to be clensed of the so-called untrue believers within it. What was also interesting is how this cult was originally dealt with. Genghis Khan and his troops played seige warfare, crushed them, took their leader out of their temple and kicked him to death. Apparently it rid the Middle East of a cancer for 5 or 6 centuries.

[gags]

The problem is that most of the so-called “Moderates” in the islamic world are not doing much in the way of trying to defend their beliefs from these fundamentalists, which leads me to the conclusion that they are probably not the majority in that region.

I agree that “moderate” Muslims aren’t likely the majority in many regions. Whether they are the majority or not, demonstrations like these make it unlikely that moderates will raise a finger to oppose the more radical elements. Someone called this the Muslim “Crystal Nacht” and they weren’t far off.

[DavidOdden]

I didnt imply ‘people’ to mean ‘the readers of this internet forum’ - I was talking about the world in general.

I know that, and I was referring to the fact that Americans were not rioting in the streets, calling for the execution of The Queen because of Steve Bell’s cartoons (years and years of them). I am disputing your claim that “anybody else would have acted that way”. It’s not true, false, not so and does not correspond to reality. Although it has occasionally happened that leftists riot to prevent a rally by Nazis, though I don’t know of any riots and murders caused by publication of Nazi material – it’s more an immediate “stop this rally now” reaction, and it is extremely limited.

although given this thread on THE FORUM, who knows

It is beyond any rational doubt that Objectivism rejects censorship. You are under no obligation to read porn: if you don’t want to, don’t do it. That is pretty elementary application of Objectivist ethics, but I grant you that some people have trouble with that.

[Yes]

There are some protests going on in the middle east about a set of cartoons that were published in European newspapers…They don’t appear any more offensive than something Cox and Forkum might draw.

I agree.

But the Muslim fundies are offended as no one there has the right to criticize their beloved prophet in any way. So they manifest this anger and outrage the way any uncivilized group of animals might- by rioting and killing.

Personally, I have no sympathy whatsoever for the Muslims in the “eastern world”. They stood by while thousands of innocent Americans were cold-bloodedly slaughtered on September 11th. So if they wish to slaughter each other over cartoons, then I’d just as soon let them.

[Hakarmaskannar]

Just a quick comment.

Over here in the UK we have had our ‘Baying mob’ howling for blood and promising death to the EU and Denmark as seen here .

Shame I couldn’t find the photo that I was looking for but I distinctly remember the placard at the london protest that said,“Death to Free Speech”. it must take an enormous amount of evasion in the protestor’s mind to seriously wave that about

[dark_unicorn]

Just a quick comment.

Over here in the UK we have had our ‘Baying mob’ howling for blood and promising death to the EU and Denmark as seen here .

Shame I couldn’t find the photo that I was looking for but I distinctly remember the placard at the london protest that said,“Death to Free Speech”. it must take an enormous amount of evasion in the protestor’s mind to seriously wave that about

The sheer idiocy of these people is actually starting to make me wonder if there really are two realities.

Quote of the Moment: “I have always made one prayer to God, a very short one. Here it is: “My God, make our enemies very ridiculous!” God has granted it to me.” (Voltaire)

[jrs]

Since the cartoons were published last September, why is this coming to a head only now? It seems to me that Fatah may have decide to stir up a ruckus about the cartoons to distract attention from their loss in the Palestinian elections.

Instead of apologizing for the cartoons of Muhammad, we should drown the Muslims in a sea of caricatures of Muhammad. If they see enough of them, then they may eventually begin to regard them as being as harmless as they really are.

Needless to say, the arguments against the cartoons are completely irrational. Even if one accepted the premise that worshiping Muhammad instead of Allah is a terrible sin (idolatry), one cannot reasonably argue that the cartoons tend to cause such worship. On the contrary, saying that Muhammad cannot be depicted tends to place him on the same level as God.

[The_Wrath]

The worst part about the uproar over the cartoons is that it’s ruining my Master’s thesis. I was fine until the additional violence spread to Iraq. Now it’s completely destroying the argument that I was trying to make.

[Hal]

http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3546222/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20060208/ca…wings_holocaust

Well, lets find out what happens.

[jrs]

… we should drown the Muslims in a sea of caricatures of Muhammad.

I am not an artist, but I have an idea for a cartoon :

A pig dressed in a robe is standing on its hind legs. In its right front hoof, it holds a staff topped by a crescent moon. It is surrounded by Arabs who are listening to it. It says “… and Simon … uh, Allah says you shall not eat pork. Also do not make pictures of me, your prophet.”.

[Capitalism_Forever]

In today’s news: Swedish security police shut down Mohammed cartoon site

[gags]

That’s actually pretty good JRS. Can you draw?

In Malaysia, the government has shut down a newspaper for publishing the cartoons.

“Internal Security Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi today ordered Sarawak Tribune’s publication permit to be suspended indefinitely with immediate effect for reproducing controversial caricatures of Prophet Mohammed on February 4,” it said.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp…/192406/1/.html

[softwareNerd]

It’s interesting that a Malaysian paper would publish the cartoons in the first place. According to some reports, an Egyptian paper also published the cartoons, but much before all these protests began.

[jrs]

A pig dressed in a robe is standing on its hind legs. In its right front hoof, it holds a staff topped by a crescent moon. It is surrounded by Arabs who are listening to it. It says “… and Simon … uh, Allah says you shall not eat pork. Also do not make pictures of me, your prophet.”.

That’s actually pretty good JRS. Can you draw?

No, I cannot draw well enough to do justice to such an idea. I was hoping that someone else who can draw would like the idea enough to draw it.

Actually the cartoons which are being used as an excuse for these riots are pretty mild. I was trying to think of one which would be offensive enough to Muslims to justify some protest. This one implies that Muhammad’s revelations are phony (which, of course, they are) and compares him to a pig which is insulting. And it provides an alternate explanation of the ban on depicting Muhammad.

[DavidV]

The consensus among the conservative blogosphere is that the cartoon outcry was created by Danish Mullahs who drew the most offensive cartoons (never published) themselves and used it to ignite the protest months after the original cartoons were published. The goal was to enact censorship and detour Danish right-wing politicians after their initial political efforts failed.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_02…html#1139559700

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/…-used-fake.html

AP caption: “An unidentified Kenyan woman demonstrates in Nairobi, Kenya Friday Feb. 10, 2006.”