Muslim Rage Over Cartoon

[Guest American Woman]

No one seems to mind when Christianity is shed in an unfavorable light which happens all the time.

I missed this comment the first time around, so I'll add another example of "Christians not caring when Christianity is shed in an unfavorable light:"

TORONTO, March 7, 2006 – The Catholic Civil Rights League today expressed disgust at the publication of a cartoon in the University of Saskatchewan student newspaper “The Sheaf” depicting Jesus engaged in oral sex with a pig. The cartoon, which appeared in The Sheaf’s March 3 edition, raised the ire of many in the Saskatoon area and caused the editor-in-chief to tender his resignation.

link

The university administration condemned the cartoon.

Edited October 6, 2009 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

No one seems to mind when Christianity is shed in an unfavorable light which happens all the time.

And let's not forget the protests to "The Last Temptation of Christ:"

Protests against the movie from the religious community began before the film had even finished production. The studio was expecting a backlash due to the controversies revolving around any media treatment of Christ (see dramatic portrayals of Jesus Christ), but the protests accompanying Last Temptation were unprecedented. Major religious leaders in the United States blasted the film in fiery sermons, and condemned its subject matter as pornographic.

But Christian protests are never violent, right?

On October 22, 1988, a French catholic fundamentalist group launched molotov cocktails inside the Parisian saint Michel movie theater to protest against the film projection. This terrorist attack injured thirteen people; four of them were severely burned.

[Sir Bandelot]

But even if insults "to Islam itself" was the intention and purpose, that's OK too, if only to infect and spread a free speech virus.

Here's a place that really needs a dose of your free-speech virus. But they are your close friends, eh? Kiss kiss?

So of course no criticisms will be heard, from the genuflecting western leadership and their media megaphones-

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33206895/ns/wo...ideastn_africa/

[Mr.Canada]

And let's not forget the protests to "The Last Temptation of Christ:"

Protests against the movie from the religious community began before the film had even finished production. The studio was expecting a backlash due to the controversies revolving around any media treatment of Christ (see dramatic portrayals of Jesus Christ), but the protests accompanying Last Temptation were unprecedented. Major religious leaders in the United States blasted the film in fiery sermons, and condemned its subject matter as pornographic.

But Christian protests are never violent, right?

On October 22, 1988, a French catholic fundamentalist group launched molotov cocktails inside the Parisian saint Michel movie theater to protest against the film projection. This terrorist attack injured thirteen people; four of them were severely burned.

Ok so yours and Sirbandalots makes two. Is that it? One from 21 years ago and one from 12 years ago.

Islamists are bombing people almost every day, decapitating people, kidnapping them. Plotting to kill the PM and blow up the TSX and a variety of other things.

Not quite the same thing at all.

So, American Woman and Sirbandalot, are you two condoning threats of death over cartoons in this case?

You don't seem to be condemning their actions at all but instead attacking the position of a Christian, big surprise.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[Michael Hardner]

Mr. Canada

Ok so yours and Sirbandalots makes two.

Let's take that as a concession. Thanks.

Now that we've established that every religion takes exception to negative depictions, let's address the issue of violence. For me, it's impossible to separate the cultural influences of religious adherents from the actual religious influences. If you think that it's possible to do so, then explain why. If you agree that these things are inseparable, or at least difficult to separate, then why should we only refer to religions as being the significant influence when there are many other factors at play, such as ignorance, poverty, education and so on ?

[DogOnPorch]

Mr. Canada

Let's take that as a concession. Thanks.

Now that we've established that every religion takes exception to negative depictions, let's address the issue of violence. For me, it's impossible to separate the cultural influences of religious adherents from the actual religious influences. If you think that it's possible to do so, then explain why. If you agree that these things are inseparable, or at least difficult to separate, then why should we only refer to religions as being the significant influence when there are many other factors at play, such as ignorance, poverty, education and so on ?

OK...there's probably record of a number of so-called 'Christian riots' re: being offended. But let's try an experiment...

Google image: Christian Riot

Google image: Jewish riot

Google image: Muslim riot

...nuff said.

[bush_cheney2004]

Here's a place that really needs a dose of your free-speech virus. But they are your close friends, eh? Kiss kiss?

So of course no criticisms will be heard, from the genuflecting western leadership and their media megaphones-

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33206895/ns/wo...ideastn_africa/

But they are your "friends" too....Canadians love to get fat oil services contracts in the Saudi desert.

But that wasn't the point. Either you believe in the ideals of western liberalism or not, and certainly cannot make a case for suppressing free speech in the noble cause of not "offending" Muslims. It is only by constant exposure that such notions will be dragged (kicking and screaming) from the 7th century into the present.

More Mohammed Cartoons....NOW!

Edited October 7, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

More Mohammed Cartoons....NOW!

Always good for a laugh...

[Sir Bandelot]

But they are your "friends" too....Canadians love to get fat oil services contracts in the Saudi desert.

But that wasn't the point. Either you believe in the ideals of western liberalism or not, and certainly cannot make a case for suppressing free speech in the noble cause of not "offending" Muslims. It is only by constant exposure that such notions will be dragged (kicking and screaming) from the 7th century into the present.

More Mohammed Cartoons....NOW!

Perhaps. But Make No Mistake- my "case" was not for suppressing free speech (that sacred jewel in the crown of liberalism), in the sense that it might offend the Islamicists. My case is that such broad generalizations, when given a mass media platform affect us, our perceptions of Islam, in ways similar to what happened to the Jews in old Europe. All Jews were portrayed as subversive enemies, by the very nature of them being Jews. Their features and clothing were ridiculed, and finally they were openly, publicly despised. In those days, the use of radio and tv, and posters describing the sinister Jew as a bogeyman who would suck the breath out of white children while they slept at night... etc, was the medium for propaganda to affect peoples attitudes. Jews portrayed as ridiculous characters on posters, is not different from the Muslims shown in these cartoons.

The criticism has to be very clearly directed, and I don't think Wichman or the Danish cartoonists ever considered that aspect of it. They have created a rift in our own society, even among peaceful law abiding citizens. Now good honest muslims are afraid of going into public with their traditional dress. Thats a loss of liberty.

[Michael Hardner]

OK...there's probably record of a number of so-called 'Christian riots' re: being offended. But let's try an experiment...

Google image: Christian Riot

Google image: Jewish riot

Google image: Muslim riot

...nuff said.

Hi DOnP,

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

[Guest American Woman]

So, American Woman and Sirbandalot, are you two condoning threats of death over cartoons in this case?

You don't seem to be condemning their actions at all but instead attacking the position of a Christian, big surprise.

I'm not "attacking" anyone. I'm pointing out that there are Christians who don't like it any more than some Muslims do when their religion is the one being 'targeted.' "Big surprise" that that went right over your head, and you went into attack mode, making ludicrous insinuations with your off-the-wall moronic question. Evidently pointing out that you were wrong, that Christians take offense too, really hit a nerve.

Now to answer your question. I don't condone it when Muslims issue death threats over such things and I don't condone it when Christians do.

Now I think I'll turn the tables and ask you -- are you condoning the violence carried out in the Christian protest against the Temptation of Christ?

[DogOnPorch]

Hi DOnP,

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

If the photos don't give you that answer, then I suppose...nothing.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't know - DonP - all I see is some random images with some violent images in there.

It's not at all clear what you're thinking here. I don't see significant changes between the sets of images, and if I did that wouldn't mean anything much to the world outside google.

[DogOnPorch]

I don't know - DonP - all I see is some random images with some violent images in there.

It's not at all clear what you're thinking here. I don't see significant changes between the sets of images, and if I did that wouldn't mean anything much to the world outside google.

OK...meet you at the riot @ 3pm? We'll have coffee.

[jbg]

OK...there's probably record of a number of so-called 'Christian riots' re: being offended. But let's try an experiment...

I guess you weren't aware of the number of times suit-wearing Jewish lawyers and doctors poured into Toronto's and New York's streets, cutting hands and heads off of Christians.

[bush_cheney2004]

....My case is that such broad generalizations, when given a mass media platform affect us, our perceptions of Islam, in ways similar to what happened to the Jews in old Europe. All Jews were portrayed as subversive enemies, by the very nature of them being Jews. Their features and clothing were ridiculed, and finally they were openly, publicly despised. In those days, the use of radio and tv, and posters describing the sinister Jew as a bogeyman who would suck the breath out of white children while they slept at night... etc, was the medium for propaganda to affect peoples attitudes. Jews portrayed as ridiculous characters on posters, is not different from the Muslims shown in these cartoons.

No, the difference is that such portrayals were fostered and acted on by government. The solution to such things in modern liberalism is simply more speech, not suppression or censorship.

The criticism has to be very clearly directed, and I don't think Wichman or the Danish cartoonists ever considered that aspect of it. They have created a rift in our own society, even among peaceful law abiding citizens. Now good honest muslims are afraid of going into public with their traditional dress. Thats a loss of liberty.

Too bad....nobody worries about the fears of Hasidic Jews doing the exact same thing. Ditto Native Americans, the Amish, Sikhs, Scots, etc.

In a society where modern (government funded) art includes a crucifix immersed in urine (e.g. "Piss Christ"), I don't know why there would be an exception for Simpons cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

[Argus]

I'm not "attacking" anyone. I'm pointing out that there are Christians who don't like it any more than some Muslims do when their religion is the one being 'targeted.' "

Uhm, yeah, thats true. They don't "like' it. But no one much cares because, by and large, Christians aren't going to blow you up or kill your children because they feel you insulted their religion.

[Michael Hardner]

Argus,

Uhm, yeah, thats true. They don't "like' it. But no one much cares because, by and large, Christians aren't going to blow you up or kill your children because they feel you insulted their religion.

This is the classic two-step that comes at the beginning of every anti-Muslim argument:

The argument starts out as being about religion and the fact that they protest the anti-Muhammed cartoons. After it's pointed out that most religions protest depictions of their idols (and there's nothing wrong with that) then the protests (that are done here and mostly peacefully) and tied to violence by people from other countries who happen to share that religion.

It's a poor argument. There other countries that also suffer religious violence, not just Muslim countries. There aren't any Christian religious backwaters on the other side of the world, and to attribute that to some valour of Christianity is just patting oneself on the back for being on the lucky side of history, in my opinion.

[bush_cheney2004]

....It's a poor argument. There other countries that also suffer religious violence, not just Muslim countries. There aren't any Christian religious backwaters on the other side of the world, and to attribute that to some valour of Christianity is just patting oneself on the back for being on the lucky side of history, in my opinion.

Correct...and all the more reason we shouldn't bend over backwards for any religion when it comes to cartoons, caricatures, blaspheming, and any other perceived "insult". Let 'em rage......

[wulf42]

More Mohammed Cartoons....NOW!

...............

[wulf42]

Argus,

This is the classic two-step that comes at the beginning of every anti-Muslim argument:

The argument starts out as being about religion and the fact that they protest the anti-Muhammed cartoons. After it's pointed out that most religions protest depictions of their idols (and there's nothing wrong with that) then the protests (that are done here and mostly peacefully) and tied to violence by people from other countries who happen to share that religion.

It's a poor argument. There other countries that also suffer religious violence, not just Muslim countries. There aren't any Christian religious backwaters on the other side of the world, and to attribute that to some valour of Christianity is just patting oneself on the back for being on the lucky side of history, in my opinion.

But it is only the Muslims you hear about!!........ Radicle Islam is a huge threat to the

west .

[weareone]

But it is only the Muslims you hear about!!........ Radicle Islam is a huge threat to the

west .

RadicalMuslims are a hugh threat to themselves. How long do you thing peaceful Muslims are going to put up with suicide bombers. Muslims are indiscriminately killing their own. Studies are now showing that Muslims are tired of it. Soon the majority of Muslims will turn on the radical Islamists. I do not believe that even the Muslim faith condones innocents.

I guess it is a matter of interpretation of whatever religious book they hold to be faithful. I personally believe the Bible is a fairy tale and the Torah is a bigger fairy tale and the Koran is the biggest fairy tale of all.

[jbg]

RadicalMuslims are a hugh threat to themselves. How long do you thing peaceful Muslims are going to put up with suicide bombers. Muslims are indiscriminately killing their own. Studies are now showing that Muslims are tired of it. Soon the majority of Muslims will turn on the radical Islamists. I do not believe that even the Muslim faith condones innocents.

I hope you're right but it's been an awful long time in coming. My impatience is why I sometimes seem anti-Muslim. I would change my views the minute Muslims, in large numbers, began condemning their crazies.

I guess it is a matter of interpretation of whatever religious book they hold to be faithful. I personally believe the Bible is a fairy tale and the Torah is a bigger fairy tale and the Koran is the biggest fairy tale of all.

Last I looked the Torah is the first five books of the Bible. At least it was when I went to Synagogue yesterday for a Bat Mitzvah.

[Guest American Woman]

My impatience is why I sometimes seem anti-Muslim. I would change my views the minute Muslims, in large numbers, began condemning their crazies.

I have said the same thing myself; that moderate Muslims should be speaking out against the extremists. But I'm not sure I feel that way any more. At least I don't feel as if they should be singled out for not speaking out against the wrong being done in their name/religion. First of all, Muslims come from all corners of the world. So when you say ".......Muslims, in large numbers, began condemning their crazies," do you mean Muslims from all over the world, from every nation, of every race? Or are you speaking of the Arab world, where most of our problems are centered? And if you feel as if Muslims should be speaking out against the deaths of innocent civilians, who should be speaking out against the death of innocent civilians due to our governments' actions? Don't we have the same responsibility to speak out that you say Muslims do? Shouldn't they be able to expect the same from us that you expect from them? Is it right for us to expect them to 'accept' collateral damage?

[Michael Hardner]

AW, these are good questions.

Everybody has something to 'speak up' about.