Muhammad cartoon row intensifies
- Thread starter om3ga
- Start date
The lack of "Equivalent Insult" to Jewish, Christian, etc...
First off, there are 1.3B people practicing Islam. I always apply a standard "5% Bad Apples" rule to ANY organization. That results in 65M "Bad Apples" when it comes to Islam. We have seen thousands of violent protesters and harmful actions made. This is well UNDER the 65M of "Bad Apples" that we should see as far as I'm concerned. Much of the Islamic world is showing restraint, while trying to educate people on the offensive nature of the cartoons.
Secondly, some newspapers printed other characterizations if that was "equal" to the beliefs of others. I have to DISAGREE WITH THE PAPERS on that attitude as well. If these papers wanted to do EQUAL INSULT, they should have shown dipictions that those of the Jewish faith DESERVED TO BE EXTERMINATED AT THE HANDS OF NAZI GERMANY. In fact, in Germany, anything Nazi is banned, and such a depiction of those of the Jewish faith with regards to Nazi Germany would be considered an MAJOR OFFENSE!
But lo'n behold, such an EQUIVALENT depiction of Muhammed is "Free Speech." That's what the 5M of those fellow Muslim Americans are complaining about, peacefully (and thank God for them, and our nation that welcomes them). And I have to AGREE with them! This is total NON-SENSE and INSULTS disguised as "Free Speech."
Which brings me to my final point. The media has a RESPONSIBILITY to ACT RESPONSIBLY. That means you do NOT go around WHOLLY INSULTING 1.3B people! That is WHOLLY IRRESPONSIBLE! Especially when it is equated to a nation's views as a whole. It's this level of IRRESPONSIBILITY that causes the people of a federal to come under undo harm, which in turn FORCES the state to move to PROTECT its people. If the media would just THINK before it does something like this, and the HARM it causes both those offended as well as the right to "Free Speech" overall, then maybe the world would be a better place.
Because when a RIGHT is ABUSED, we ALL LOSE.
Classic but recent example here in the United States was the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Because when one people abuse their rights to harm another, we ALL lose. The term "states' rights" is very, very taboo because of it -- and states lost their rights when the federal had to intervene to guarantee the rights of its citizens. Hell, before that, in the 1860s, the states could have been considered "independent republics" compared to modern definitions. Each time, the ABUSE of a right of a FEW resulted in the LOSS of it for ALL.
The MEDIA in this case CROSSED the same line, to the point the federal must act.
In the United States, there are a few organizations who constantly try to take out ads in media suggesting the Holocaust never happened. Every now and then a few papers publish them citing "Free Speech" as well. The good thing is that people are held accountable in the United States for their actions by the consumer, being that we are one of the few, largely capitalistic nations on the Earth. It's one of those irony that such a country viewed and demonized as greedy and exploiting in comparison to more socialist and "goodwilled" countries has a balance that only comes from a non-state sponsored, constantly state-questioning media that DOES know where it's "limits" are because of that little, individual consumer.
ALL "Free Speech" has consequences. Just don't make it a point to do something that HARMS the people of a nation into where they must act to preserve it.
First off, there are 1.3B people practicing Islam. I always apply a standard "5% Bad Apples" rule to ANY organization. That results in 65M "Bad Apples" when it comes to Islam. We have seen thousands of violent protesters and harmful actions made. This is well UNDER the 65M of "Bad Apples" that we should see as far as I'm concerned. Much of the Islamic world is showing restraint, while trying to educate people on the offensive nature of the cartoons.
Secondly, some newspapers printed other characterizations if that was "equal" to the beliefs of others. I have to DISAGREE WITH THE PAPERS on that attitude as well. If these papers wanted to do EQUAL INSULT, they should have shown dipictions that those of the Jewish faith DESERVED TO BE EXTERMINATED AT THE HANDS OF NAZI GERMANY. In fact, in Germany, anything Nazi is banned, and such a depiction of those of the Jewish faith with regards to Nazi Germany would be considered an MAJOR OFFENSE!
But lo'n behold, such an EQUIVALENT depiction of Muhammed is "Free Speech." That's what the 5M of those fellow Muslim Americans are complaining about, peacefully (and thank God for them, and our nation that welcomes them). And I have to AGREE with them! This is total NON-SENSE and INSULTS disguised as "Free Speech."
Which brings me to my final point. The media has a RESPONSIBILITY to ACT RESPONSIBLY. That means you do NOT go around WHOLLY INSULTING 1.3B people! That is WHOLLY IRRESPONSIBLE! Especially when it is equated to a nation's views as a whole. It's this level of IRRESPONSIBILITY that causes the people of a federal to come under undo harm, which in turn FORCES the state to move to PROTECT its people. If the media would just THINK before it does something like this, and the HARM it causes both those offended as well as the right to "Free Speech" overall, then maybe the world would be a better place.
Because when a RIGHT is ABUSED, we ALL LOSE.
Classic but recent example here in the United States was the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Because when one people abuse their rights to harm another, we ALL lose. The term "states' rights" is very, very taboo because of it -- and states lost their rights when the federal had to intervene to guarantee the rights of its citizens. Hell, before that, in the 1860s, the states could have been considered "independent republics" compared to modern definitions. Each time, the ABUSE of a right of a FEW resulted in the LOSS of it for ALL.
The MEDIA in this case CROSSED the same line, to the point the federal must act.
In the United States, there are a few organizations who constantly try to take out ads in media suggesting the Holocaust never happened. Every now and then a few papers publish them citing "Free Speech" as well. The good thing is that people are held accountable in the United States for their actions by the consumer, being that we are one of the few, largely capitalistic nations on the Earth. It's one of those irony that such a country viewed and demonized as greedy and exploiting in comparison to more socialist and "goodwilled" countries has a balance that only comes from a non-state sponsored, constantly state-questioning media that DOES know where it's "limits" are because of that little, individual consumer.
ALL "Free Speech" has consequences. Just don't make it a point to do something that HARMS the people of a nation into where they must act to preserve it.
Or the fact that in ANY ORGANIZATION, there are going to be 5% of people who will use ANY PLATFORM to excuse any act. Especially an organization that tells you what to believe and not question, which is why most organized religions by man is a form of brainwashing. It can and is often used for VERY GOOD purposes. But in the end, you've still got that 5%.Imagine said:
BNF...that's such a strong, intelligent post. I've been following this story closely and have been reading all sorts of column on it...and what you wrote is just as good as anything else I've read.
However, I would like to post one column that I thought was right on...
________________
Hindus consider it sacrilegious to eat meat from cows, so when a Danish supermarket ran a sale on beef and veal last fall, Hindus everywhere reacted with outrage. India recalled its ambassador to Copenhagen, and Danish flags were burned in Calcutta, Bombay, and Delhi. A Hindu mob in Sri Lanka severely beat two employees of a Danish-owned firm, and demonstrators in Nepal chanted: ''War on Denmark! Death to Denmark!"In many places, shops selling Dansk china or Lego toys were attacked by rioters, and two Danish embassies were firebombed.
It didn't happen, of course. Hindus may consider it odious to use cows as food, but they do not resort to boycotts, threats, and violence when non-Hindus eat hamburger or steak. They do not demand that everyone abide by the strictures of Hinduism and avoid words and deeds that Hindus might find upsetting. The same is true of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Mormons: They don't lash out in violence when their religious sensibilities are offended. They certainly don't expect their beliefs to be immune from criticism, mockery, or dissent.
But radical Muslims do.
The current uproar over cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper illustrates yet again the fascist intolerance that is at the heart of radical Islam. Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest daily, commissioned the cartoons to make a point about freedom of speech. It was protesting the climate of intimidation that had made it impossible for a Danish author to find an illustrator for his children's book about Mohammed. Muslims regard any depiction of the prophet as sacrilegious, and no artist would agree to illustrate the book for fear of being harmed by Muslim extremists. Appalled by this self-censorship, Jyllands-Posten invited Danish artists to submit drawings of Mohammed, and published the 12 it received.
Most of the pictures are tame to the point of dullness, especially compared to the biting editorial cartoons that routinely appear in US and European newspapers. A few of them link Mohammed to Islamist terrorism -- one depicts him with a bomb in his turban, while a second shows him in Heaven, pleading with newly arrived suicide terrorists: ''Stop, stop! We have run out of virgins!" Others focus on the threat to free speech: In one, a sweating artist sits at his drawing board, nervously sketching Mohammed, while glancing over his shoulder to make sure he's not being watched. Some make no point at all -- one simply portrays a man walking with his donkey in the desert.
That anything so mild could trigger a reaction so crazed -- riots, death threats, kidnappings, flag-burnings -- speaks volumes about the chasm that separates the values of the civilized world from those in too much of the Islamic world. Freedom of the press, the marketplace of ideas, the right to skewer sacred cows, the ability to disagree with what you say while firmly defending your right to say it: Militant Islam knows none of this. And if the jihadis get their way, it will be swept aside everywhere by the censorship and intolerance of sharia.
Here and there, some brave Muslim voices have cried out against the book-burners. The Jordanian newspaper Shihan published three of the cartoons. ''Muslims of the world, be reasonable," implored Shihan's editor, Jihad al-Momani, in an editorial. ''What brings more prejudice against Islam -- these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?" But within hours Momani was out of a job, fired by the paper's owners after the Jordanian government threatened legal action.
He wasn't the only editor sacked last week. In Paris, Jacques LeFranc of the daily France Soir was also fired after running the Mohammed cartoons. The paper's owner, an Egyptian Copt named Raymond Lakah, issued a craven and Orwellian statement expressing "regrets to the Muslim community" and offering LeFranc's head as a gesture of ''respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual." But the France Soir staff defended their decision to publish the drawings in a stalwart editorial. ''The best way to fight against censorship is to prevent censorship from happening," they wrote. ''A fundamental principle guaranteeing democracy and secular society is under threat. To say nothing is to retreat."
Across the continent, nearly two dozen other newspapers have joined in defending that principle. While Islamist clerics proclaim an ''international day of anger" or declare that ''the war has begun," leading publications in Norway, France, Italy, Spain, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have reprinted the Danish cartoons. But there has been no comparable show of backbone in America, where (as of Friday) only the New York Sun has had the fortitude to the run some of the drawings.
Make no mistake: This story is not going away, and neither is the Islamofascist threat. The freedom of speech we take for granted is under attack, and it will vanish if it is not bravely defended. Today the censors may be coming for some unfunny Mohammed cartoons, but tomorrow it is your words and ideas they will silence. Like it or not, we are all Danes now.
___________________
The above was written by Jeff Jacoby and published 2/6/2006 on Townhall.com
However, I would like to post one column that I thought was right on...
________________
Hindus consider it sacrilegious to eat meat from cows, so when a Danish supermarket ran a sale on beef and veal last fall, Hindus everywhere reacted with outrage. India recalled its ambassador to Copenhagen, and Danish flags were burned in Calcutta, Bombay, and Delhi. A Hindu mob in Sri Lanka severely beat two employees of a Danish-owned firm, and demonstrators in Nepal chanted: ''War on Denmark! Death to Denmark!"In many places, shops selling Dansk china or Lego toys were attacked by rioters, and two Danish embassies were firebombed.
It didn't happen, of course. Hindus may consider it odious to use cows as food, but they do not resort to boycotts, threats, and violence when non-Hindus eat hamburger or steak. They do not demand that everyone abide by the strictures of Hinduism and avoid words and deeds that Hindus might find upsetting. The same is true of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Mormons: They don't lash out in violence when their religious sensibilities are offended. They certainly don't expect their beliefs to be immune from criticism, mockery, or dissent.
But radical Muslims do.
The current uproar over cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper illustrates yet again the fascist intolerance that is at the heart of radical Islam. Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest daily, commissioned the cartoons to make a point about freedom of speech. It was protesting the climate of intimidation that had made it impossible for a Danish author to find an illustrator for his children's book about Mohammed. Muslims regard any depiction of the prophet as sacrilegious, and no artist would agree to illustrate the book for fear of being harmed by Muslim extremists. Appalled by this self-censorship, Jyllands-Posten invited Danish artists to submit drawings of Mohammed, and published the 12 it received.
Most of the pictures are tame to the point of dullness, especially compared to the biting editorial cartoons that routinely appear in US and European newspapers. A few of them link Mohammed to Islamist terrorism -- one depicts him with a bomb in his turban, while a second shows him in Heaven, pleading with newly arrived suicide terrorists: ''Stop, stop! We have run out of virgins!" Others focus on the threat to free speech: In one, a sweating artist sits at his drawing board, nervously sketching Mohammed, while glancing over his shoulder to make sure he's not being watched. Some make no point at all -- one simply portrays a man walking with his donkey in the desert.
That anything so mild could trigger a reaction so crazed -- riots, death threats, kidnappings, flag-burnings -- speaks volumes about the chasm that separates the values of the civilized world from those in too much of the Islamic world. Freedom of the press, the marketplace of ideas, the right to skewer sacred cows, the ability to disagree with what you say while firmly defending your right to say it: Militant Islam knows none of this. And if the jihadis get their way, it will be swept aside everywhere by the censorship and intolerance of sharia.
Here and there, some brave Muslim voices have cried out against the book-burners. The Jordanian newspaper Shihan published three of the cartoons. ''Muslims of the world, be reasonable," implored Shihan's editor, Jihad al-Momani, in an editorial. ''What brings more prejudice against Islam -- these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?" But within hours Momani was out of a job, fired by the paper's owners after the Jordanian government threatened legal action.
He wasn't the only editor sacked last week. In Paris, Jacques LeFranc of the daily France Soir was also fired after running the Mohammed cartoons. The paper's owner, an Egyptian Copt named Raymond Lakah, issued a craven and Orwellian statement expressing "regrets to the Muslim community" and offering LeFranc's head as a gesture of ''respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual." But the France Soir staff defended their decision to publish the drawings in a stalwart editorial. ''The best way to fight against censorship is to prevent censorship from happening," they wrote. ''A fundamental principle guaranteeing democracy and secular society is under threat. To say nothing is to retreat."
Across the continent, nearly two dozen other newspapers have joined in defending that principle. While Islamist clerics proclaim an ''international day of anger" or declare that ''the war has begun," leading publications in Norway, France, Italy, Spain, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have reprinted the Danish cartoons. But there has been no comparable show of backbone in America, where (as of Friday) only the New York Sun has had the fortitude to the run some of the drawings.
Make no mistake: This story is not going away, and neither is the Islamofascist threat. The freedom of speech we take for granted is under attack, and it will vanish if it is not bravely defended. Today the censors may be coming for some unfunny Mohammed cartoons, but tomorrow it is your words and ideas they will silence. Like it or not, we are all Danes now.
___________________
The above was written by Jeff Jacoby and published 2/6/2006 on Townhall.com
I don't think there is such a thing as "freedom of speech",anywhere in the world.Sure,one has the right to say whatever he wants,but he suffers the consequences.If you insult a minority,you're getting sued.If you insult the majority,you're getting sued too.Because,in fact, "freedom of speech" means the right one has to tell you the things that you DON'T want to hear.The reaction only changes,and that according to the education,the social and the economic status of the one listening.How many ads have been brought down from the billboards as "sexists" or "racists"? I can think of a few.Why?because some people were offended,they took it to court and won.Is that free speech?We could argue on that.Do we have the right to be offended or don't we? Lyrics of rock or rap songs have been censored,even lately.Is that free speech or not? The world is so big,that no matter what you do,at least one person will take it personnaly.
I have a friend.He doesn't want his friends to talk about his sister,no matter what.He gets really angry and asks them to stop.If they continue (as I do),there is a fight.It happens often.Whose fault is it?Is it my fault,that I don't take his weakness into consideration and continue,even if I know that I'll make him mad,or is it his fault,because he can't take a joke?I think it's my fault,since I know in advance he'll lose his calm,and I know that I can't change his way of thinking.So why do I do it?I don't know,I kinda enjoy him losing it.But when it comes to something way larger than that,one has to think twice before pissing someone really off.
Didn't they know that a large number of poor,uneducated,hopeless people was going to be easily manipulated by extremists who want to keep up the violence?Didn't they know that Islam right now is a very delicate subject?Sure they knew that,but they didn't care.You can't blame someone for not having "a sense of humour".You can't blame someone for not being as open-minded as you are.Most of the third world countries (regardless of their official religion) are not very open minded.No food,no work,no health,no education,no money,no nothing,how could they be?And the western world,we,"demands" that they think in the same way as we do? First of all:Not every culture has the same values as the western world does.Not every country believes in free speech,not every country believes in "human rights" etc etc.These are notions and ideas that have been invented in Europe.Judging other peoples beliefs based on our own is wrong.
The people burning down embassies are doing just that.
I think that in difficult times like these,one should let things calm down,don't throw more "oil in the fire",and be responsable for his actions and his words.I don't believe in censorship,but people (writers,cartoonists,etc) should auto-censure themsleves,think twice before publishing something.There are many ways to say things,one can get his message through in a more subtle way,underground.In periods of dictatorships,cartoonists,journalists and others did exactly that.They found ways to be "ok" with the censors,but still managed to say what they had to say.It just takes more time to think of how you'll say it,and maybe not all of them are that intelligent.
The only ones winning from all this are all the warheads around the world that look for excuses to drop more bombs,kill more people,sell more weapons,invade more countries,sell more religious fundamentalism,gain more power.I wish there were a way for everyone to see the real reasons behind all the violence in the world,but no one seems eager to tell the people the truth.
PS.Recently a president of a certain country "reminded" everyone that his country has the atom bomb,and that it wouldn't mind using it,if some other country became a threat. For some reason,that president is not considered as dangerous as another president of another country,that has no atom bomb.I'm having trouble figuring that out...It has nothing to do with this thread (at least directly) but i just had to say it.
PS2.If someone calls your mother,your sister or your wife "a whore" ,right in your face,do you react or not? Do you just swallow it and leave peacefully,do you respond in a civilized way,do you laugh or is your reaction less tolerant?
I have a friend.He doesn't want his friends to talk about his sister,no matter what.He gets really angry and asks them to stop.If they continue (as I do),there is a fight.It happens often.Whose fault is it?Is it my fault,that I don't take his weakness into consideration and continue,even if I know that I'll make him mad,or is it his fault,because he can't take a joke?I think it's my fault,since I know in advance he'll lose his calm,and I know that I can't change his way of thinking.So why do I do it?I don't know,I kinda enjoy him losing it.But when it comes to something way larger than that,one has to think twice before pissing someone really off.
Didn't they know that a large number of poor,uneducated,hopeless people was going to be easily manipulated by extremists who want to keep up the violence?Didn't they know that Islam right now is a very delicate subject?Sure they knew that,but they didn't care.You can't blame someone for not having "a sense of humour".You can't blame someone for not being as open-minded as you are.Most of the third world countries (regardless of their official religion) are not very open minded.No food,no work,no health,no education,no money,no nothing,how could they be?And the western world,we,"demands" that they think in the same way as we do? First of all:Not every culture has the same values as the western world does.Not every country believes in free speech,not every country believes in "human rights" etc etc.These are notions and ideas that have been invented in Europe.Judging other peoples beliefs based on our own is wrong.
The people burning down embassies are doing just that.
I think that in difficult times like these,one should let things calm down,don't throw more "oil in the fire",and be responsable for his actions and his words.I don't believe in censorship,but people (writers,cartoonists,etc) should auto-censure themsleves,think twice before publishing something.There are many ways to say things,one can get his message through in a more subtle way,underground.In periods of dictatorships,cartoonists,journalists and others did exactly that.They found ways to be "ok" with the censors,but still managed to say what they had to say.It just takes more time to think of how you'll say it,and maybe not all of them are that intelligent.
The only ones winning from all this are all the warheads around the world that look for excuses to drop more bombs,kill more people,sell more weapons,invade more countries,sell more religious fundamentalism,gain more power.I wish there were a way for everyone to see the real reasons behind all the violence in the world,but no one seems eager to tell the people the truth.
PS.Recently a president of a certain country "reminded" everyone that his country has the atom bomb,and that it wouldn't mind using it,if some other country became a threat. For some reason,that president is not considered as dangerous as another president of another country,that has no atom bomb.I'm having trouble figuring that out...It has nothing to do with this thread (at least directly) but i just had to say it.
PS2.If someone calls your mother,your sister or your wife "a whore" ,right in your face,do you react or not? Do you just swallow it and leave peacefully,do you respond in a civilized way,do you laugh or is your reaction less tolerant?
om3ga
It's good to be the king...
In France, a court threw out on technical grounds an application for an injunction against a satirical publication that planned to print the 12 caricatures in its Wednesday edition.
The editor of Charlie-Hebdo welcomed the ruling.
"Criticising religion is legitimate in a state of law and must remain so," Philippe Val said.
But the Union of Islamic Organisations of France, one of the groups that applied for the injunction, said "one cannot insult a religion".
Some Muslim countries have enacted sanctions against Denmark, while its embassies have been attacked and its exports boycotted.
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen thanked international leaders who had offered support, including US President George W Bush.
An Iranian newspaper has launched a competition, asking artists to submit cartoons about the Holocaust, citing their decision to publish on free speech grounds.
Details:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4691878.stm
Associated Press
02/05/2006
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - A Belgian-Dutch Islamic political organization posted anti-Jewish cartoons on its Web site in response to the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that appeared in Danish papers last year and offended many Muslims.
The cartoons were posted on the Arab European League's site on Saturday. It was not working Sunday morning because of exceeded bandwidth.
The site carried a disclaimer saying the images were being shown as part of an exercise in free speech rather than to endorse their content - just as European newspapers have reprinted the Danish cartoons.
One of the AEL cartoons displayed an image of famed Dutch Holocaust victim Anne Frank in bed with Adolf Hitler, and another questioned whether the Holocaust actually occurred.
Details:
http://www.cjp.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=174371
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/02/06/story243290.html
Words simply fail me.....
The editor of Charlie-Hebdo welcomed the ruling.
"Criticising religion is legitimate in a state of law and must remain so," Philippe Val said.
But the Union of Islamic Organisations of France, one of the groups that applied for the injunction, said "one cannot insult a religion".
Some Muslim countries have enacted sanctions against Denmark, while its embassies have been attacked and its exports boycotted.
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen thanked international leaders who had offered support, including US President George W Bush.
An Iranian newspaper has launched a competition, asking artists to submit cartoons about the Holocaust, citing their decision to publish on free speech grounds.
Details:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4691878.stm
Associated Press
02/05/2006
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - A Belgian-Dutch Islamic political organization posted anti-Jewish cartoons on its Web site in response to the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that appeared in Danish papers last year and offended many Muslims.
The cartoons were posted on the Arab European League's site on Saturday. It was not working Sunday morning because of exceeded bandwidth.
The site carried a disclaimer saying the images were being shown as part of an exercise in free speech rather than to endorse their content - just as European newspapers have reprinted the Danish cartoons.
One of the AEL cartoons displayed an image of famed Dutch Holocaust victim Anne Frank in bed with Adolf Hitler, and another questioned whether the Holocaust actually occurred.
Details:
http://www.cjp.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=174371
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/02/06/story243290.html
Words simply fail me.....
Last edited:
Damn I love it when I'm on-the-money ...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/07/news/iran.php
Various European papers started this non-sense with their IRRESPONSIBILITY. With "Free Speech" comes responsibility.
Damn I love it when I'm on-the-money:Prof Voluptuary said:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/07/news/iran.php
Various European papers started this non-sense with their IRRESPONSIBILITY. With "Free Speech" comes responsibility.
Re: Damn I love it when I'm on-the-money ...
I don't agree with what they printed, but I don't see it as irresponsible. Free Speech wouldn't be much if you had to tuck tail and run the other way every time somebody might be upset over what you say. People are only responsible for there own actions, not the actions of others. If anybody is shunning their responsibilities it isn't the newspapers or the journalist. I would like to see it where it says they are obligated not to make anybody angry. Of course if I got mad over something I read in the newspaper and went out and killed 10 people it would be the newspaper's fault...huh?
As far as I am concerned they can think whatever they want. I don't mind what their beliefs are. I care when they start telling me what to do or start infringing on the rights of others. I don't blame them for not having a sense of humor; I blame them for the actions they take.
Isn't this a hypocritical statement since you yourself are judging us wrong for judging others beliefs? How are we supposed to judge others? I may be going on my own beliefs and judging others by what I believe in, but I know I can be comfortable arguing for the side of the human rights I believe in.
Prof Voluptuary said:
I don't agree with what they printed, but I don't see it as irresponsible. Free Speech wouldn't be much if you had to tuck tail and run the other way every time somebody might be upset over what you say. People are only responsible for there own actions, not the actions of others. If anybody is shunning their responsibilities it isn't the newspapers or the journalist. I would like to see it where it says they are obligated not to make anybody angry. Of course if I got mad over something I read in the newspaper and went out and killed 10 people it would be the newspaper's fault...huh?
buzus said:
As far as I am concerned they can think whatever they want. I don't mind what their beliefs are. I care when they start telling me what to do or start infringing on the rights of others. I don't blame them for not having a sense of humor; I blame them for the actions they take.
buzus said:
Isn't this a hypocritical statement since you yourself are judging us wrong for judging others beliefs? How are we supposed to judge others? I may be going on my own beliefs and judging others by what I believe in, but I know I can be comfortable arguing for the side of the human rights I believe in.
Re: Damn I love it when I'm on-the-money ...
With free speech comes responsibility, and if I'm going to INSULT a figure many respect, I had better know what I'm stirring up.
My POINT wasn't whether it should be allowed or not.
My POINT was that when something causes HARM to a nation, they're just ABUSING a right that puts the leadership into a pickle.
Because, in the end, REGARDLESS of the violence which is only a VERY SMALL FACTION of the Islamic faith, there are a LOT of people who are pissed off.
So while I don't condone the violence, I do 100% agree with most of the PEACEFUL demonstrations.
It was UNCALLED FOR and an ABUSE of free speech.
You are EXCLUDING the 99% of those of Islamic faith that are taking this INSULT in strike.
They papers may believe they have the "right" to insult 1.3 billion people, but they should have thought about BEFORE doing so.
I could understand the printing if ALL 1.3 BILLION OF THE ISLAMIC FAITH believe in violence in the name of Islam.
But that is NOT THE CASE.
So what the papers did is INSULT ALL 1.3 BILLION when it's really not even 1% who they were targetting.
I'm sorry you can't see the points I'm making.
1. With free speech comes responsibility
2. You do NOT ABUSE free speech to INSULT BILLIONS of people
3. If you INSULT BILLIONS of people, don't be surprised when you have 0.01% commit violence
4. As much as people ARE responsible for their own actions, at some point, you have to recognize that if you INSULT a ENOUGH PEOPLE, 1/10,000 are going to do something about it.
Think of the OTHER 99.99% who were INSULTED.
That's the problem here, I'm NOT only NOT condoning the violence, but the other 99.99% are NOT either.
But they are trying to get people like yourself, among others, to recognize -- PEACEFULLY -- that it was an INTENTIONAL INSULT.
All done in the name, and GROSS ABUSE, of "free speech."
You're applying YOUR VALUES to the situation.
You do NOT stop to UNDERSTAND the INSULT applied.
One that would NOT be tolerated had it been done in EQUIVALENCE to those of Jewish, Christianity, etc...?
I'm merely TELLING YOU what the other 99.99% are trying to TELL YOU.
I'm merely giving EXAMPLES from our OWN PAST that ABUSES of "free speech" sometimes cause the government to have to TAKE AWAY your "free speech."
Why? In order to protect its citizens.
You have equated the violent acts of 0.01% of a people as the WHOLE of 1.3 BILLION who were INSULTED.
There is a difference between "touchy/feely" political correctness and other non-sense that results in the "United States of the Offended."
And this is NOT one of them -- this is VERY DIFFERENT.
Do NOT attempt to apply your own values to that of those of the Islamic faith.
Islam isn't radical, there are just some core believes you don't want to cross.
Same with those of the Jewish faith.
Heck, several denominations of the Christian faith are far more "touchy."
Depends on what you are going to say.D-rock said:
With free speech comes responsibility, and if I'm going to INSULT a figure many respect, I had better know what I'm stirring up.
My POINT wasn't whether it should be allowed or not.
My POINT was that when something causes HARM to a nation, they're just ABUSING a right that puts the leadership into a pickle.
Because, in the end, REGARDLESS of the violence which is only a VERY SMALL FACTION of the Islamic faith, there are a LOT of people who are pissed off.
So while I don't condone the violence, I do 100% agree with most of the PEACEFUL demonstrations.
It was UNCALLED FOR and an ABUSE of free speech.
Oh, I very much DISAGREE.D-rock said:
You are EXCLUDING the 99% of those of Islamic faith that are taking this INSULT in strike.
They papers may believe they have the "right" to insult 1.3 billion people, but they should have thought about BEFORE doing so.
If you're going to make 1.3 billion people angry, make it for a WORTHY cause.D-rock said:
I could understand the printing if ALL 1.3 BILLION OF THE ISLAMIC FAITH believe in violence in the name of Islam.
But that is NOT THE CASE.
So what the papers did is INSULT ALL 1.3 BILLION when it's really not even 1% who they were targetting.
You TOTALLY MISSED MY POINTS!D-rock said:
I'm sorry you can't see the points I'm making.
1. With free speech comes responsibility
2. You do NOT ABUSE free speech to INSULT BILLIONS of people
3. If you INSULT BILLIONS of people, don't be surprised when you have 0.01% commit violence
4. As much as people ARE responsible for their own actions, at some point, you have to recognize that if you INSULT a ENOUGH PEOPLE, 1/10,000 are going to do something about it.
FORGET the 0.01%.D-rock said:
Think of the OTHER 99.99% who were INSULTED.
That's the problem here, I'm NOT only NOT condoning the violence, but the other 99.99% are NOT either.
But they are trying to get people like yourself, among others, to recognize -- PEACEFULLY -- that it was an INTENTIONAL INSULT.
All done in the name, and GROSS ABUSE, of "free speech."
That's the problem right there!D-rock said:
You're applying YOUR VALUES to the situation.
You do NOT stop to UNDERSTAND the INSULT applied.
Then what do you say to the other 99.99% who are asking you to understand it was an ABUSE of "free speech"?D-rock said:
One that would NOT be tolerated had it been done in EQUIVALENCE to those of Jewish, Christianity, etc...?
How am I "judging"?D-rock said:
I'm merely TELLING YOU what the other 99.99% are trying to TELL YOU.
I'm merely giving EXAMPLES from our OWN PAST that ABUSES of "free speech" sometimes cause the government to have to TAKE AWAY your "free speech."
Why? In order to protect its citizens.
You take THEIR VALUES into consideration.D-rock said:
You have equated the violent acts of 0.01% of a people as the WHOLE of 1.3 BILLION who were INSULTED.
Considerations for the values of others is founded in our great nation, the United States of America.D-rock said:
There is a difference between "touchy/feely" political correctness and other non-sense that results in the "United States of the Offended."
And this is NOT one of them -- this is VERY DIFFERENT.
Do NOT attempt to apply your own values to that of those of the Islamic faith.
Islam isn't radical, there are just some core believes you don't want to cross.
Same with those of the Jewish faith.
Heck, several denominations of the Christian faith are far more "touchy."
That's exactly my points as well.********** said:
The limited charaterizations of other faiths were NOT equivalent.
It was clearly a political move, NOT an actual one.
Let's see characterizations of the Jewish faith getting killed in the Holocaust, or that it NEVER happened -- which Iran is now doing. NOTHING I would condone, but it IS EQUIVALENT in INSULT.
Let's look at the German law on Nazism, the Holocaust, etc... and apply EQUAL laws AGAINST such on those against the Islamic faith.
Ironically, they do NOT, because it was Christians killing Jews!
Oooh, good insight.********** said:
I need to educate myself on this more (I'm rather ignorant of this).
Damn straight!********** said:
The majority of individuals I met from Germany (largely engineers) have my deepest respect.
But I've met 2 couples from Germany in my time that really explains HOW someone like Hitler could gain power.
And comments like the German Chancellor calling W. (who I NEVER voted for!) "Hitler."
Now I'm sure I could find such in America too, and have probably met enough in my time.
But when it comes to US federal-level acceptance of such attitudes on a MASS SCALE, there are unwritten rules in how the US acts in response to such ABUSES.
But that is to be expected of a nation of not only such great diversity, but a nation built on the foundation of the CRAP EUROPE ITSELF DID NOT WANT.
Intolerance and being a citizen of the United States are mutually exclusive.
I know the popular demonizations of the US suggest otherwise, but it's the reality.
At least in comparison to many European nations.
PERSONAL NOTE: I am NOT of Jewish or Islamic background, but I was raised Irish Catholic, even though I ended my faith once I was no longer under the influence of my parents. If there is a faith I identify with, it's Bahai Faith, "God in his many forms."********** said:
I consider myself of "independent spirituality."
I also know it has a direct impact on my views of the state in a Libertarian ideal.
Policy ...
"Policy" is the political argument that ultimately results from LACK OF RESPECT between two people. When people are considerate of one another, there is NO NEED for "policy."
Unfortunately, at some point, someone decides they have the RIGHT to INSULT some else's values. Furthermore, they will often point to a "policy," or explict LACK OF POLICY, as an excuse for their "right."
And then WE ALL LOSE when the entity -- be it a company, nation, etc... -- MUST enact "policy" to address the ABUSE of no policy. To protect those who it protects.
This is clearly that type of ABUSE.
"Policy" is the political argument that ultimately results from LACK OF RESPECT between two people. When people are considerate of one another, there is NO NEED for "policy."
Unfortunately, at some point, someone decides they have the RIGHT to INSULT some else's values. Furthermore, they will often point to a "policy," or explict LACK OF POLICY, as an excuse for their "right."
And then WE ALL LOSE when the entity -- be it a company, nation, etc... -- MUST enact "policy" to address the ABUSE of no policy. To protect those who it protects.
This is clearly that type of ABUSE.
I dont mean to offend anyone, but if the people thinks that something direspects their god(s), let the so called god(s) handle it and put their wrath on those people. Only then will you find out the true god(s).
Interesting perspective, and I can see the humor.woosydoosy said:
But the reality is that the insult was intentional, directed at 1.3 billion people.
om3ga
It's good to be the king...
To quote Richard Wilson's Victor Meldrew, 'I don't be-lieve it!'.
- Thousands of Muslims are expected to join a protest in London today over cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.
- At least 10 people have been killed and several injured in Libya in clashes during a protest outside an Italian consulate, according to police. Police confronted protesters who had set fire to the building in the port city of Benghazi, in the latest protests over the Muhammad cartoons. They were said to be angry at Italian minister Roberto Calderoli, who had worn a T-shirt displaying the drawings
- Outbreaks of violence across Pakistan have prompted Denmark to temporarily close its embassy in Islamabad.
- A minister in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, Haji Yaqub, announces an $11m (£6.3m) reward for anyone who beheads the cartoonist who drew the images.
- Peshawar cleric Maulana Yousaf Qureshi offers 7.5m rupees ($125,000) and a car to anyone who kills the cartoonist.
- In Hong Kong, more than 2,000 Muslims stage a (peaceful) anti-cartoon march.
Bloody Hell!!
- Thousands of Muslims are expected to join a protest in London today over cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.
- At least 10 people have been killed and several injured in Libya in clashes during a protest outside an Italian consulate, according to police. Police confronted protesters who had set fire to the building in the port city of Benghazi, in the latest protests over the Muhammad cartoons. They were said to be angry at Italian minister Roberto Calderoli, who had worn a T-shirt displaying the drawings
- Outbreaks of violence across Pakistan have prompted Denmark to temporarily close its embassy in Islamabad.
- A minister in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, Haji Yaqub, announces an $11m (£6.3m) reward for anyone who beheads the cartoonist who drew the images.
- Peshawar cleric Maulana Yousaf Qureshi offers 7.5m rupees ($125,000) and a car to anyone who kills the cartoonist.
- In Hong Kong, more than 2,000 Muslims stage a (peaceful) anti-cartoon march.
Bloody Hell!!
spiceworld
Banned
What the hell do they want anyway, i believe the guy who did the cartoons in the first place already said he was sorry. Talk about looking for an excuse to break everything...
om3ga
It's good to be the king...
spiceworld said:
According to the protesters in London, they're requesting the copyrights to the cartoons, in order to prevent further reproductions.
Oh and Italian minister Roberto Calderoli, who had worn a T-shirt displaying the drawings, has resigned:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4727606.stm
Similar threads
