I think you are neither ignorant nor stupid. However, the term West is commonly includes both the United States, Western Europe, and former Unite Kingdom colonies such as Canada and Australia.

I don't think an Islamic law is concerned here. I think it's more of an International law. Probably not a law at all, just common sense and respect of fellow humans and their beliefs.

 

Everybody has the right to express their religion fully.

 

Followers of Islam are very fond of their religion, it guides their lives completely.

Since this drawing is a major sin, when they see it, it's like going straight to hell or something.

 

Publicly showing this drawing is like feeding some Kosher meat to a Jewish person and reveal after they finish eating it that no, it was not kosher.

 

Thats what I think anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I couple of comments here. First, I don't necessarily agree that everybody has the right to express their religion fully. It depends upon the religion itself, and if "expressing it fully" infringes upon the basic rights of others. Human sacrifice, for example, is pretty universally forbidden despite the fact that some religions still believe in it.

 

Next, I agree that it was pretty danged insensitive to create the cartoons in question, and meant to annoy. Cartoons mocking Christianity are pretty danged insensitive too, but I doubt the world would rationalize Christians storming the streets threatening to kill people and inflict violence. Burning national flags is intended to be insulting, but nobody would tolerate folks of that nation rising up to incite violence because of it.

 

When one specific segment of society is such a bully to society that it receives "special" treatment so it won't hurt society, then can you not see that there is something very wrong with that? If Muslims want to boycott Danes in their own country, fine. But it is not fine for them to incite violence, make violent threats, riot, or generally break the law. They are not special, dang it. The laws apply to them too.

 

My thoughts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry, I lack specificity. I meant ALLOWED/RECOGNIZED religions. Of course sacrificing virgins in Time Square would be... Distasteful.

Thankfully, there are no more virgins

.. This is Danish culture at it's core, we are very ironic and actually quite mean if you don't understand our particular way of expressing ourselves ..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I read this at least six times. Talk about a lightbulb going off. This actually is to thank you, Rosbjerg, immensely for this insight, because quite frankly I have met over a half-dozen Danes on various boards over the years, and have never gotten along well with any of them. I thought them... arrogant and mean. Yes, mean. (We won't get into what they thought about me.) I now realize that much of what I interpreted as deliberate mean-spirited behavior was probably considered witty and ironic in a culture that I clearly do not understand as well as I had foolishly thought I did.

 

It is with embarrassed revelation that your brief sentence reminds me that Europeans and Americans are very different cultures, and that we frequently misunderstand each other. My apologies to my Danish forum mates for my lack of comprehension in the past, although I cannot guarantee that it won't happen in the future.

 

Okay, off topic I know, so carry on. It just hit me like a light bulb that what I had attributed to unpleasantness was probably just culture shock. And I suspect it goes both ways.

I think you are neither ignorant nor stupid.  However, the term West is commonly includes both the United States, Western Europe, and former Unite Kingdom colonies such as Canada and Australia.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok that makes sense. Except for Australia. How are they west of the Middle-East? Aren't they South-East?

 

Being somewhat sarcastic here

To ~Di - Even Europeans sometimes suprise each other with our difference in culture.. especially when it comes to humor and what is considered inappropriate!

 

Danes in unfamiliar territory will probably be much more polite, but on a forum they can be like they always are!

Sorry, I lack specificity. I meant ALLOWED/RECOGNIZED religions. Of course sacrificing virgins in Time Square would be... Distasteful.

Thankfully, there are no more virgins

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

LOL, yes, and why aren't there any virgins? We sacrificed 'em all!

 

Hehe, seriously, in America all religions are allowed and recognized. It's a constitutional thing. It literally takes an act of congress to disallow a religion here; now disallowing religious practices that infringe on others or break the law is different.

 

Believe it or not, however, some Indian tribes are allowed to break USA drug laws because their religious ceremonies require certain illegal/controlled substances. So our country bends over backwards for all religions, whether common sense finds said religions "worthy" or not. So I wasn't really trying to be a pain in the neck, lol. That distinction is very important here, where all religions, no matter how "silly" they may seem, are recognized.

That was pretty much my stance, my numbered friend.

And here I was trying to be disagreeable. You're no fun, man.

 

 

No it wasn't.

 

The West to me has always been North America. The East, Asia; the Middle-East the Arab countries then there is Europe, South America and Oceania(Australia, New-Zealand) all in no particular order of power or superiority.

Well, whenever I hear or read about "the West", I interpret the Western way of life, the Western culture. That's not exclusive to North America.

Sorry, I lack specificity. I meant ALLOWED/RECOGNIZED religions. Of course sacrificing virgins in Time Square would be... Distasteful.

Thankfully, there are no more virgins

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

LOL, yes, and why aren't there any virgins? We sacrificed 'em all!

 

Hehe, seriously, in America all religions are allowed and recognized. It's a constitutional thing. It literally takes an act of congress to disallow a religion here; now disallowing religious practices that infringe on others or break the law is different.

 

Believe it or not, however, some Indian tribes are allowed to break USA drug laws because their religious ceremonies require certain illegal/controlled substances. So our country bends over backwards for all religions, whether common sense finds said religions "worthy" or not. So I wasn't really trying to be a pain in the neck, lol. That distinction is very important here, where all religions, no matter how "silly" they may seem, are recognized.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think we are as openminded here in Canada. Raeliens were only recently recognized as an official religion, shortly before the clone scandal thing if i remember. Yet they've been around for a few decades now.

 

Anyway, I think ALL religions make the human race very weak. It prevents us from evolving I think. But that is for another thread.

I think Tolkien shared that line of thought numbers. "And

Edited February 2, 200619 yr by Lucius

I think you are neither ignorant nor stupid.  However, the term West is commonly includes both the United States, Western Europe, and former Unite Kingdom colonies such as Canada and Australia.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok that makes sense. Except for Australia. How are they west of the Middle-East? Aren't they South-East?

 

Being somewhat sarcastic here

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The west refers to all cultures that are predominantly of (western-)european origin : Europe,the Americas and Australia/New Zealand. The origin of the term is historical.

 

qwb,

Edited February 2, 200619 yr by butterfly

I think you are neither ignorant nor stupid.  However, the term West is commonly includes both the United States, Western Europe, and former Unite Kingdom colonies such as Canada and Australia.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok that makes sense. Except for Australia. How are they west of the Middle-East? Aren't they South-East?

 

Being somewhat sarcastic here

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The west refers to all cultures that are predominantly of (western-)european origin : Europe,the Americas and Australia/New Zealand. The origin of the term is historical.

 

qwb,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok I get it. Makes more sense now thank you.

 

So... when's the war startin'?

it started 3 years ago ...

it started 3 years ago ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey now. It also ended 2 years ago. Remember the victory speech on the aircraft carrier?

 

I may not know my western countries but I know what GWB said.

it started 3 years ago ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey now. It also ended 2 years ago. Remember the victory speech on the aircraft carrier?

 

I may not know my western countries but I know what GWB said.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hate him...so very much.

 

 

 

On a lighter note: I thought the little cartoon was funny. It's not aimed at Muslims...but extremists (Yes, I know it's an offense to portray Alah in any way, shape, or form)...and honestly, I retain my right to draw, or write whatever the hell I want to.

 

Not that I'd make a picture of Alah gettin' busy with a cow and then run around an Iranian town screaming "Lookie! Lookie!" or anything, since that's profoundly stupid.......... ...............yes, stupid, but so long as I'm thousands of miles away from gun-toting fundamentalists...I'm gonna try my damndest to poke, prod, and annoy religious folk with cartoons. Which is a bit dumb, in and of itself, since...it's a cartoon.

 

There are bigger fish that need frying. Ever heard the phrase "pick your battles"?

 

 

Then again, I'm the one who got a good laugh out of that picture of a crucified Jesus as a snicker ad, so you'd all be better off ignoring anything I say, since I realized half-way through typing this that my entire opinion is less than informed and nowhere near sensitive to religious people...but...I'm bored.

Of course my views of what is distasteful and unwelcome are subjective.  Hence, I siad that I thought it was distasteful.  Even should we reach a consensus, the fundamental fact remains that the debate is centered on subjective viewpoints.  That doesn't mean that we can't argue such views.  That also doesn't mean we cannot reach a broad consensus.

 

EDIT:  I think we CAN reach broad consensus, but such a consensus is likely fleeting.

A consensus is useless unless there is some measure of force to make sure that consensus is respected. Be it social ostracism, criminal prosecution, or whatever. In this case there is not only no such consensus, but enforcing it should it be reached would undoubtedly entail undermining individual freedoms.

 

Reaching a consensus may be enough for you and me, and even then, only as long as we keep respecting each other. The question here is, do they respect us? I doubt it, because if they did, they would not tell us what should or should not publish in our press.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To me this very discussion is an example of whether there should be a right to free speech. This is a controversial subject, and yet we discuss it here. Should we be prevented from that in some cases or should there be limits to what opinions we can express?

 

We may not reach a consensus, but to me the point is whether we are even allowed to look for one through discussion and debate or whether we should accept limitations based on what 'someone' might find offensive. Since we are all still here, it seems most of us prefer the right to free speech.

 

I may not like the cartoons and think the reason for publishing them was questionable - they seemed to serve only as provocation - but if it's a choice between that and censorship of any kind, I'll support the cartoons, since I find that to be the lesser evil, even if it has ghastly consequences, since the alternative is even more scary.

Of course freedom of speech is limited. The question is where we draw the line. Traditionally, the threshold has been quite high.

Of course freedom of speech is limited.  The question is where we draw the line.  Traditionally, the threshold has been quite high.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is and should be limited by the laws of course, yes. I guess I forgot to mention that. And if I understand it correctly, Jyllandsposten was reported for their cartoons, only the prosecutor decided to drop the case, since he saw no way to win it.

Of course freedom of speech is limited.  The question is where we draw the line.  Traditionally, the threshold has been quite high.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is and should be limited by the laws of course, yes. I guess I forgot to mention that. And if I understand it correctly, Jyllandsposten was reported for their cartoons, only the prosecutor decided to drop the case, since he saw no way to win it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is correct, it didn't hold water.

 

The real issue here is not so much the cartoons themselves, but more the misinformation that was spread in muslim nations by Imams from our own country in an attempt to get people hissy, they succeded it seems. I heard in a debate on Danish TV tonight that at the Arab League summit, there had been drawings of Muhammed having sex with pigs(or cows, can't remember), no such picture was ever produced by the media here. And as they stated in the debate; this was the level of information in the highest circles of the muslim world, think about the misinformation on the streets!.

Rosbjerg: Great post, for what my opinion is worth. Note that the fatwah aginst Salman Rushdie was issued years after the book was first published, when it suited the Ayatollah. It was not some spontaneous outburst of rage. It was orchestrated. It sounds to me like this was too.

 

 

~

 

I'm a huge fan of the radio comedy 'Old Harry's Game' on the BBC. A sitcom based in Hell, with Satan as the lead. Lots of fun poking at religion. Do I want this banned? Of course not. Do I think it needs to be banned? Not really.

 

Equally, if you look at wacky hate rags througout history you find humour can be used to break taboos and demonise people far more effectively than standard dry debate. I don't like to hear 'jewish' or 'paddy' jokes. So as a precursor to violence I would prefer to see such behaviour prohibited at least to mass audiences.

 

But overall, I find this whole question pretty odd and tricky.

 

~

 

As an aside I should add that while these countries may object to our treatment of the image of thier prophet I find the treatment of women in those same countries ten times more offensive. But I'm not dancing around burning flags. Of course, this could be because I'm just not very good at parties.

Patience is a virtue. I said I would unlock this when I returned so here we are.

Merge it with the freedom of speech thread please.

This situation...is stupid. Any goverment or represental body of a country has anything to with a private newspaper in another country. It's good to see that everyone at this board has the general concensus that the Arabic countries are overreacting.

 

If there's anyone who thinks that Denmark owes the muslim community an apology and a shutdown of the newspaper, then YOU HAVE NO MORAL AUTHORITY TO BASE YOUR ARGUMENT UNLESS YOU DISAPROVE THE FREEDOM OF PRESS.

 

 

 

 

Case. F*cking. Closed.

Merge it with the freedom of speech thread please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Threads merged.

Tyvm.

I knew that Islam frowned upon images of Mohammed, but I didn't know how much offence Muslims would take at the perceived mocking of their Prophet. I've learned something about Islam from this row, and I guess many Europeans have done the same.

 

It's important that European newspapers stand up for freedom of speech, even if this proves harmful to our economies. Hopefully, this will give those in the Muslim world an opportunity to learn more about European culture and the value we place on this freedom. The best that can come out of all this is that we all understand each other's positions a little better.