Librarium Online Forums banner
1 - 20 of 91 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am surprized not to find this topic started already. Surely many of you have heard about or seen the Mohammed drawings?
Basically, what happened was that a Danish newspaper "Jyllands Posten" on the 30th of September 2005 posted twelve drawings of Mohammed. The drawings were satiristik and humoristic, but offended muslims all over Denmark.

The drawings shocked the muslim population, and led to a chain reaction. The drawings were published in Norwegian, French, German and Icelandic newspapers, and fake drawings, worse than the original ones were published in muslim countries in order to make the situation look worse than it was.
The reactions against the drawings included life threaths for the illustrators, demonstrations and major debates in many countries, leading to demands for public apologies from the newspaper and the Danish govenment.

Denmark is famous for their humour. Satire and sarkasm is everywhere and I have often seen drawings similar to the Mohammed drawings of the Christian God and Jesus. No one was ever bothered. In Denmark, people generally laugh at such things, and are able to see it as a joke. The drawings were published to see if the resent immigration has had an effect on the freedom of speech.

So what do you think? Is it wrong to publish such things? Danes, what are your views? Any Muslims around?

I will state my views later, but would apreciate some feedback first.
 

·
LO Zealot
Joined
·
1,449 Posts
H0urg1ass said:
Imagine that. Denmark Isn't perfect. All this time I thought that only American's were screw ups. :rolleyes:
The drawings was NOT a screw up. We should be allowed to print whatever we want in our newspapers, and the last thing on earth we need is religious/political moderation of the press. The fact that the drawings offended some of muslims living here is sad, but on the other hand I really dont understand why they keep on living here, if they think that Denmark is such a horrible country? No one is holding them back, if they dont like it here they can leave at any time they please.

For those of you who havent heard of the infamous Mohammed cartoons, check out this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons

Good topic Gerbrith, I look forward to discussing it.
 

·
Son of LO
Joined
·
2,160 Posts
The drawings was NOT a screw up. We should be allowed to print whatever we want in our newspapers, and the last thing on earth we need is religious/political moderation of the press.
In that case, enjoy the repercussions of political and religious "freedom" of speech.

Note: Freedom of speech also comes with responsibility of speech. Just because someone can do something doesn't mean that they should. Obviously, the Muslims feel that those cartoons are in the "shouldn't" column.
 

·
LO Zealot
Joined
·
1,449 Posts
Yes, they probably feel that way, but you forget that these drawings are their own fault. The reason why these drawings was printed in the first place, is because some muslims have tried to threaten an author to leave out pictures of mohammed from a childrens book. Jyllands Posten (the newspaper that first printed the drawings) simply used the drawings to point out that threats of violence should not dictate the media, and they did that well. I also think that our prime minister are doing a great job by refusing to apologize the drawings to anyone, which we of course shouldn´t. As I said before, the muslims are free to leave the country and never think of us again if they feel that the culturat gap is too big.
 

·
Son of LO
Joined
·
4,529 Posts
Images of the Prophet Mohammed are banned under Islam..

It doesn't matter whether you paint him as a saintly figure, or mockingly. The fact that you're illustrating him is an insult to the Islamic faith. Illustrating the dude in a mocking light simply rubs salt in the already significant wound you've inflicted by creating that imagine in the first place.

To be honest, the artists responsible should have done some research before they decided to put pen to paper, rather than whining about the death threats now. It was abseloutely predictable. I'm not a muslim, but if I was, I'd be as angry as the others. Actions have consequences.. You want to make a play claiming Jesus was gay (yes, there were death threats involved), cool, just accept the consequences.. You want to paint a picture of the prophet Mohammed, accept the consequences.
 

·
LO Zealot
Joined
·
1,449 Posts
The_Giant_Mantis said:
To be honest, the artists responsible should have done some research before they decided to put pen to paper, rather than whining about the death threats now. It was abseloutely predictable.
But that is exactly why they did it, dont you see? Accepting that muslims forbid everyone, even non-muslims, to draw muhammed is to accept worldwide religious moderation of our press, and I think that we can agree on that being a bad thing. Kudos to Jyllands Posten for having the guts to do this protest, the very fact that the case has gotten so big prooves that it was neccesary.
 

·
Son of LO
Joined
·
4,529 Posts
Farseer Sareld said:
Kudos to Jyllands Posten for having the guts to do this protest, the very fact that the case has gotten so big prooves that it was neccesary.
Okay.. But let's ask ourselves, do these images serve any real purpose save to offend people?

Protesting against religious control of the media.. Sure, if you have something worthwhile to say. If you want to publically violate the commandments of someone elses religion just for the sake of offending them, well, it stands to reason that you may have to accept some negative consequences (not saying it should be illegal to do so, but to be surprised and upset about it is frankly stupid.)

Some of them give me scary reminders of historic images of turks.

Muslims are not even exceptionally overeacting next to other religions.. You want to know how much hatemail the cast and crew of Jerry Springer: The Musical have recieved from Christian groups over the years. Marilyn Manson also recieves numerous death threats. Noone likes to have something vitally important and central to their lives mocked and violated in front of them. A British cartoonist recently got in trouble for displaying Ariel Sharon eating a baby, on the grounds that it played on a historical anti semitic idea.

Heck, if the creators really believed in free speech, why didn't they show a child being sodomized and see how many people laughed. Wouldn't that be a better expression of media freedom than targetting a minority which already feels alienated.
 

·
Son of LO
Joined
·
2,160 Posts
Guts? When It comes to AK wielding, religious fanatics, I don't call it guts. I call it sheer stupidity in the face of religious ignorance.

I realize that Western Europe, heck most of Europe, has a certain disdain for religion and that they don't take it seriously, but some people do. Some people live their whole lives based around religious tenents. Some people, Muslims in particular, are quite willing and ready to kill based on religious principles. Didn't the cartoonists see this one coming?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
655 Posts
I see nothing wrong with the cartoons. I do see something wrong with people making death threats because of slights to a story that they take a little too seriously. I don't appreciate it, in the slightest, when people take these stories and try to use them to control my life without any other justification other than 'It's in my story.'

Now saying that, for example, people shouldn't kill I can get behind. If you remove it from it's particular story, (almost all) people will still agree that it's a good idea to not go about killing other people. I can even understand (I almost want to say respect, but I can't.) taking a stance that abortions are bad, because one can make an argument against it without saying 'But it's in my story!' (No, let's not turn this into a discussion on abortion.) I can see no reason why drawing a picture of a fictional character is bad except for a) potential copyright infringement and b) invoking 'But it's not allowed by my story!'.

I understand that some people take these stories far too seriously and will do very foolish things because of that. I also realize that, more likely than not, most of the people who believe in these stories are not this fantatical. I've never met a person who believed in a story that tried to enforce it on me, even. I see nothing wrong with not tip-toeing around somebody's story.

There are, of course, consequences if one of the overly zealous story believers takes offense. This does not make ignoring their taboos wrong any more than civil rights movements have been. Just because there are negative consequences to an action does not make it wrong, the consequences simply make the action more expensive.
 

·
Son of LO
Joined
·
4,529 Posts
Bob Dole said:
'It's in my story.'
That's just the thing.. It's not neccesarily a story.

To Muslims, it's most certainly not. I could ask any of the many Christians on this forum if they think the bible is just a story. I think I can guess the answer.

We're talking about the origin of the universe here, the very reason the universe exists, the reason we're here and the reason all our lives have meaning. If you believe that 'story' as you put, wouldn't it be worth killing for, or dying for?

Until you've died, come back and provided proof that it's not real, it doesn't work to say that Muslims are taking it 'too seriously.' There is no such thing as too seriously when it comes to the meaning of existence.

In the event that that story is true, it somewhat changes the definition of right and wrong, doesn't it? We can be very self righteous, as beings, in our belief that what our parents taught us was right and wrong applies the universe, but who knows, maybe good is killing someone for slagging off a prophet. We won't know until we die.
 

·
Son of LO
Joined
·
2,160 Posts
@ Bob Dole

Wow. That was the most obtuse reply I've seen so far. What is this "story" you keep talking about? Are you attempting to be demeaning to religious people by reducing their entire set beliefs to a "story"? You are way out of line, if that's so.

You can't just take the defining factor in someones life and call it a stupid story just because you don't believe it yourself.

I can't believe this. I'm Jewish and I'm defending Muslims (who would kill me in a heartbeat if they found me in dark alley) from irreverence towards their faith. A faith that I don't even believe in myself!
 

·
ISIS Secret Agent Squishy
Joined
·
1,875 Posts
After searching for nearly an hour, I finally managed to find (legible) copies of the cartoons. And I have to say, I was rather dissappointed by them. So much uproar for such pathetic drawings, it's a joke. While doing my search for the cartoons, I came across a number of interesting articles about them (which didn't publish the darned things). The most interesting article was about the blatant hypocisy of Muslims with regards to making "images of Mohammed". For hundreds of years, Muslims have been painting images of Mohammed, and yet nothing is done about it. They have been selling ancient works of Islamic art bearing images of Mohammed amongst each other for just as long. But as soon as a non-Muslim draws a crappy little cartoon and lables one of the people in it "Mohammed" then it's time for Jihad.
Possibly the most depressing thing about the whole issue is the way in which it started. An author wanted to write a book about Mohammed, that he hoped would go some way to easing the conflict between Islam and Christianity. As many people are want, he wished to have illustrations for various stories in the book. Unfortunately because of a "law" that is disregarded by a significant number of Muslisms, he was unable to find a believer of Islam to illustrate his book in a way that would be respectful. The local newspaper found out about this and called for some cartoonists to try their hand at a Mohammed cartoon. The rest is insanity.
Personally I have to agree with the Danish standpoint on the whole thing. I am not going to allow anyone to dictate to me, what I can and cannot do, based on their religious beliefs - which are different to mine. I do not force my belief system onto anyone else, and so I will not stand for it to be done to me. The number of jokes and cartoons and insults that people have made about my religious beliefs is incredible, but I was taught tolerance, and so I do not declare war on those who insult my faith, instead I either leave them to their misunderstandings or I correct those misunderstandings in as civil a manner as I can; depending upon their attitude. I'm not one to beat my head against a brick wall (for someone else anyway - occasionally it feels good though :shifty: )
 

·
Son of LO
Joined
·
4,529 Posts
mpdscott said:
Personally I have to agree with the Danish standpoint on the whole thing. I am not going to allow anyone to dictate to me, what I can and cannot do, based on their religious beliefs - which are different to mine.
Yeah, but if that's your standpoint, why stop at religious beliefs.. Why can't a child molester publish cartoons showing children being abused, for example, just because someone else considers that sick. Or why can't a racist public cartoons showing black people as subhuman, just because people might be offended?

Ultimately, very few people believe in a free press.. It's just a continuum of what will and won't be tollerated in the media. Denmark, I feel, has a right to decide for itself where it stands, so I'm not criticising the governments decision. What I will criticise is the artists' and newspaper's stupidity.. There are thousands of ways to make a point about freedom of speech without being intentionally offensive to a large proportion of the worlds population. Heck, even if they'd just published the article, I doubt many people would have noticed.. As it is, they've gone and offended a huge number of people, and are suddenly all surprised about that.

mpdscott said:
Unfortunately because of a "law" that is disregarded by a significant number of Muslisms, he was unable to find a believer of Islam to illustrate his book in a way that would be respectful.
Note the words 'unable to find.' It's not like they were being held at gunpoint and told not to do it, they merely didn't want to. Whether or not muslims have been making images of mohammed for hundreds of years is irrelevant, in this case, they had a choice about whether to or not, and they chose not to. I don't see why that should be considered wierd or wrong, and I don't see how it warrants their religion being mocked in a newspaper.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
628 Posts
I honestly see the "Muslim outrage" as just another way for the 'leaders' of that religion to try and drum up anti-Western support for every cause they are currently involved in around the globe. Not just in Iraq, but Chechnya and Africa and Israel.

To me it's just another example of how far behind modern times the religion actually is.

In America, Christianity has been under attack by the ACLU and other atheistic and anti-religious fanatics for generations.

What do you think is going to happen when those groups start targeting Islamic practitioners?

If the Mulah's thought what the Danes did was bad, just wait till those godless heathens get their teeth into their Islamic arses! :)

As for my opinion about the drawings and cartoons themselves?

It was just harmless expression.

Here in the U.S.A. the majority of us agree that freedom of expression is inalienable, whether God given or not.

Just my 2 cents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Being a Dane I suppose it comes as no surprise that I support Jyllands-Posten in publishing the drawings and the government in refusing to apologise for the drawings being published. In Denmark we have absolute freedom of speech; people have the right to say whatever they want however they want. You can’t prevent anyone from saying anything, and that’s exactly what the Muslim minority in Denmark was trying to do. Censorship is against the Danish constitution, and we are right to protest against it.

The_Giant_Mantis said:
Yeah, but if that's your standpoint, why stop at religious beliefs.. Why can't a child molester publish cartoons showing children being abused, for example, just because someone else considers that sick. Or why can't a racist public cartoons showing black people as subhuman, just because people might be offended?
But they can! That’s what free speech is all about! A child molester can publish offending cartoons, as can a racist. Preventing them from doing so is censorship, and that’s exactly what we’re protesting against with these drawings of Mohammad. Remember that people have the right to be offended and Danish legislation allows for people to be punished for making offensive statements, but to prevent the statements from being made is to limit free speech and that’s against our constitution.

What should have happened is that the Danish Muslim community should have gone to the police and accused Jyllands-Posten of offending their religion so the newspaper could be tried and convicted according to Danish legislation. What happened instead was that the religious leaders of the Muslim community went to the Middle East and sowed misinformation about the gravity of the drawings, arousing a hatred towards Denmark that is quite undeserved. The Danish Imams among other things included in their evidence against Denmark a photograph of a praying Muslim being raped by a dog – that photo was never published in Jyllands-Posten as part of their campaign against religious censorship, yet it is being used to rile up the Islamic dominated countries against Denmark.

Also, it should be mentioned that Jyllands-Posten has already apologised for offending the Islamic religion. However, neither they nor the government will apologise for publishing the drawings; we have free speech and it is our right to publish whatever we want. Yes, freedom of speech does come with a responsibility that one must take seriously and Denmark does punish offenders, but true censorship should never be supported in any manner or fashion.

~Grephaun.
 

·
Son of LO
Joined
·
2,160 Posts
A child molester can publish offending cartoons
Certainly child molestation is illegal even in as liberal a country as Denmark.

I believe that you are bit too zealous minded in your youthful determination to see that anything and everything have a place to be published, because I see no place anywhere, whatsover, for any purpose at all, that child pornography should be publishable material. That is sick and as the father of two children I highly disapprove.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
H0urg1ass said:
Certainly child molestation is illegal even in as liberal a country as Denmark.

I believe that you are bit too zealous minded in your youthful determination to see that anything and everything have a place to be published, because I see no place anywhere, whatsover, for any purpose at all, that child pornography should be publishable material. That is sick and as the father of two children I highly disapprove.
Read the quote, please. I never said child molestation is allowable, nor that child pornography should be freely published; in fact I am vehemently against child molestation and pornography and I quite resent anyone implying that I’m not. I said that publishing an offending cartoon can’t be prevented due to the constitutional freedom of speech. However, I am ready to guarantee that whoever published such a cartoon would offend someone and end up in a courtroom. That people can publish such cartoons is not the same as saying they can’t be punished for publishing them. That’s the whole point, in fact.

~Greph.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
655 Posts
Re: Relgion = Story

Perhaps I was a little glib when I said religion is a story. Perhaps a more accurate description would be that it is a set of beliefs and rituals based off of an interpretation of a story, myth, or set of such. People are free to believe any of these stories that they wish. If someone, for example, wishes to believe that our alien ant overlords will some day come and save us, that's perfectly fine by me.

Where I have a problem is when these ideas begin to interfere with my life. Now, if a belief can be defended without using a story/religion/myth I can respect it to a degree. I can accept the belief that killing is bad because, if you were to remove this from any story/religion/myth you still have the fact that when you stab/shoot/strangle/stick-in-a-woodchipper a person, this person is no longer alive. Now, there is an implicit assumption here that I believe that it is better to be alive than dead. I feel confident that if someone was to go out and take a proper survey of the world's population and ask them if they would prefer to be alive or dead, you would find that an overwhelming majority prefer life over death. I feel this sufficiently backs up my belief that killing is bad. Further, if you dislike this approach, one could simply consider the consequences of there being no prohibition on killing other people. This is, of course, not irrefutable proof that killing is bad. However, it is an argument based on what anyone can observe. Saying, for example, that eating fried Snickers bars on Octember the 32nd is bad, has no such defense (other than that if you eat enough fried Snickers bars, you will die of heart disease.)

Grephaun said:
That people can publish such cartoons is not the same as saying they can’t be punished for publishing them. That’s the whole point, in fact.
They are perhaps too separate ideas, but freedom to publish something is almost the same as freedom from punishment. If you wish to argue that freedom of speech/press is not the same thing as freedom from punishment, then one could say that we've always had freedom of speech. Anyone can go up and say 'I think Dictator Smartypants is a terrible monster.' in any regime that I know of to date. However, Dictator Smartypants will then come and show you just how much of a monster he/she is. Freedom of speech allows people to say that without punishment.

Of course, we'll never have full freedom of speech. If you say something bad enough about someone enough times, eventually you'll say it to someone that will decide to punish you him/her-self. Freedom of speech is a a gradual thing based on how free from repercusions you are. The less punishment, the more free.

I don't know exactly what you were trying to say, so I may simply be repeating what you were trying to say in more words.
 
1 - 20 of 91 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top