Blasphemy or Freedom of expression?
Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16 Next
DanishViking @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:27 pm
xerxes xerxes:
Since I'm about 7 pages to late for this thread, here's my two cents anyway...
Sure, the newspapers can print whatever they please within the confines of the law.
But when a newspaper goes out if its way to slag on another religion in the way this Danish paper, they shouldn't be shocked at some negative reactions. Especially in this case. By depicting the head of Islam in the most stereotypical and ignorant ways, the paper brought this on themselves.
With free speech also comes responsibility. Imagine if Al-Jazeera did the same thing with Jesus Christ or the Pope (or Buddha for that matter). When you go out of your way to shit on another person's religion , don't act surprised when the winds of shit fly back at you. When you attack person most cherished beliefs (no matter what you think of them), be prepared for a violent reaction.
Sure, the newspapers can print whatever they please within the confines of the law.
But when a newspaper goes out if its way to slag on another religion in the way this Danish paper, they shouldn't be shocked at some negative reactions. Especially in this case. By depicting the head of Islam in the most stereotypical and ignorant ways, the paper brought this on themselves.
With free speech also comes responsibility. Imagine if Al-Jazeera did the same thing with Jesus Christ or the Pope (or Buddha for that matter). When you go out of your way to shit on another person's religion , don't act surprised when the winds of shit fly back at you. When you attack person most cherished beliefs (no matter what you think of them), be prepared for a violent reaction.
I take you have read all the posts? otherwise I suggest you take a look at this article - not that I’m arguing against you that pressure breeds pressure!
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp ... e_id=21654
DanishViking @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:28 pm
I admit I have no valid source for this but have been talking to Danish Muslims and heard Danish middle east correspondents display this situation – and honestly it chocks me a bit!
The Muslims we have seen it the media boycotting Danish gods, burning flags and demonstrating and so on are widely not doing this of their own will (they don’t have free media so they only know what the regimes tell them) – but because the regimes have paid them to do so in front of a camera – anyhow this Fridays prier will mark the turning point, if the regimes instruct the Imams to put a lit on what otherwise have been in their media the “Arab street” will disburse! – if they rally them to further demonstrations the situation might get out of hand even for the otherwise all controlling regimes.
I my self find this a bit unreal so I don’t know whether to believe it or not – but fore sure we know they don’t have free media!
DanishViking @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:40 pm
Tman1 Tman1:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20060202/ca_pr_on_na/cda_prophet_drawings
Perhaps some sensibility from Canadian Muslims is what's needed?
I think at they do have a point. They should be dipicting bin Laden not Muhammed.
Perhaps some sensibility from Canadian Muslims is what's needed?
I think at they do have a point. They should be dipicting bin Laden not Muhammed.
I'm happy to see that also Canada enjoys the company of modern and critical Muslim citizens – so do we in Denmark and we even have some that claim it was a good thing to publish the cartoons – don’t hope my posts have been read as I was against all Muslims – I’m not! But to understand the situation and atmosphere that it originated from I would ask you to read this article:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp ... e_id=21654
It is written by a Muslim from the US I think …
Wullu @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:57 pm
xerxes xerxes:
Since I'm about 7 pages to late for this thread, here's my two cents anyway...
Sure, the newspapers can print whatever they please within the confines of the law.
But when a newspaper goes out if its way to slag on another religion in the way this Danish paper, they shouldn't be shocked at some negative reactions. Especially in this case. By depicting the head of Islam in the most stereotypical and ignorant ways, the paper brought this on themselves.
With free speech also comes responsibility. Imagine if Al-Jazeera did the same thing with Jesus Christ or the Pope (or Buddha for that matter). When you go out of your way to shit on another person's religion , don't act surprised when the winds of shit fly back at you. When you attack person most cherished beliefs (no matter what you think of them), be prepared for a violent reaction.
Sure, the newspapers can print whatever they please within the confines of the law.
But when a newspaper goes out if its way to slag on another religion in the way this Danish paper, they shouldn't be shocked at some negative reactions. Especially in this case. By depicting the head of Islam in the most stereotypical and ignorant ways, the paper brought this on themselves.
With free speech also comes responsibility. Imagine if Al-Jazeera did the same thing with Jesus Christ or the Pope (or Buddha for that matter). When you go out of your way to shit on another person's religion , don't act surprised when the winds of shit fly back at you. When you attack person most cherished beliefs (no matter what you think of them), be prepared for a violent reaction.
I agree with what you are saying xerxes, but the papers did not run these cartoons to slag anyone, they were trying to make a point about intolerance by some muslims of the western societies they choose to live in. It all started with a children's book being unable to find an illustrator due to fear for their very lives. Alot is made of the one strip that has the prophet with a bomb on his head, but the truth is that ALL of these strips, even the most benign that mearly protray the phrophet are causing the this reaction.
What do you mean IF an arabic paper ran similar themed cartoons? They do it on a regular basis. ADL links
xerxes @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:40 pm
Hada feeling someone would find such a link. Thanks Wullu. Maybe I should rephrase it to: what if someone in the Arab did what I suggested and got as much press about it?
Wullu @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:49 pm
xerxes xerxes:
Hada feeling someone would find such a link. Thanks Wullu. Maybe I should rephrase it to: what if someone in the Arab did what I suggested and got as much press about it?
I see where you are coming from xerxes, but the very fact that these strips exist and you do not see rioting in the streets, even by the extremes of Judaism and Christianity says something about the relative tolerance of the three religions.
I can see this from a slightly different bent than most folks probably, since I am an atheist and don't have any strong feelings one or the other for any of the religions' phropets be it Mohamad or Christ or who ever. But I do have an abiding belief in the freedom of expression. To me this is the one right that ensures all others. Without the ability to freely express yourself without fear of reprisal, how can you hope to defend other rights?
ShepherdsDog @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:56 pm
$1:
When you go out of your way to shit on another person's religion , don't act surprised when the winds of shit fly back at you. When you attack person most cherished beliefs (no matter what you think of them), be prepared for a violent reaction.
It's not just with Christians and Jews though. The muslims fight with Buddhists(Thailand), Sihks and Hindus(India). Wherever there seems to be an area plagued with religious conflict in Asia, the local muslim community is the antagonist.
Jaime_Souviens @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:58 pm
xerxes xerxes:
But when a newspaper goes out if its way to slag on another religion in the way this Danish paper, they shouldn't be shocked at some negative reactions. Especially in this case. By depicting the head of Islam in the most stereotypical and ignorant ways, the paper brought this on themselves.
With free speech also comes responsibility. Imagine if Al-Jazeera did the same thing with Jesus Christ or the Pope (or Buddha for that matter). When you go out of your way to shit on another person's religion , don't act surprised when the winds of shit fly back at you. When you attack person most cherished beliefs (no matter what you think of them), be prepared for a violent reaction.
With free speech also comes responsibility. Imagine if Al-Jazeera did the same thing with Jesus Christ or the Pope (or Buddha for that matter). When you go out of your way to shit on another person's religion , don't act surprised when the winds of shit fly back at you. When you attack person most cherished beliefs (no matter what you think of them), be prepared for a violent reaction.
A beautiful, politically correct defense of intolerance.
Congratulations, you have now equivocated yourself out of any integrity at all.
kerfuffled @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:27 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
$1:
When you go out of your way to shit on another person's religion , don't act surprised when the winds of shit fly back at you. When you attack person most cherished beliefs (no matter what you think of them), be prepared for a violent reaction.
It's not just with Christians and Jews though. The muslims fight with Buddhists(Thailand), Sihks and Hindus(India). Wherever there seems to be an area plagued with religious conflict in Asia, the local muslim community is the antagonist.
"Invasive Species" is the term, I believe.
Invasive Species: Background Information
Invasive species are plants, animals, fungi, or microorganisms that spread rapidly and cause harm to other species. Sometimes invasive species threaten entire ecosystems.
Knoss @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:07 pm
I recon that if private citezens wish to boycott a paper then by the philosophy of free enterpise they must be permited to do so. But the state interferance is not acceptable, it is a violation of human rights.
If someone said something i don't agree with I'd state my argument, if someone offended me I'd tell them so, If a news paper or Tv program insulted my riligion and way of life I may organize or take part in a boycott. But a state run boycott is not a boycott it is censorship, plaina nd simple.
gideon @ Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:00 am
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=15640
"Egyptian leader warns European newspapers’ insistence on printing cartoons risked provoking terrorist backlash."
So this is the "religion of peace" we all know and love.
Liberals here and overseas have basked in ignorance and lived in denial for nearly 4.5 years. Perhaps they will take this opportunity to fully acquaint themselves with the vicious beast that is modern Islam?
The threat isn't going away, folks. It's time to show them we mean business.
It's time to invade Iran.
Banff @ Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:27 am
gideon gideon:
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=15640
"Egyptian leader warns European newspapers’ insistence on printing cartoons risked provoking terrorist backlash."
So this is the "religion of peace" we all know and love.
Liberals here and overseas have basked in ignorance and lived in denial for nearly 4.5 years. Perhaps they will take this opportunity to fully acquaint themselves with the vicious beast that is modern Islam?
The threat isn't going away, folks. It's time to show them we mean business.
It's time to invade Iran.
"Egyptian leader warns European newspapers’ insistence on printing cartoons risked provoking terrorist backlash."
So this is the "religion of peace" we all know and love.
Liberals here and overseas have basked in ignorance and lived in denial for nearly 4.5 years. Perhaps they will take this opportunity to fully acquaint themselves with the vicious beast that is modern Islam?
The threat isn't going away, folks. It's time to show them we mean business.
It's time to invade Iran.
putting past battles aside I just may be leaning your way a bit because I just don't understand what Islam wants . I'll read as much as I can about Islam relationships with the rest of the world but in the mean time I wonder if they were to be left alone would they stop bothering everyone else and why do we get involved ? There are many countries who just don't seem to want to and Western world/Islam were not always in conflict .
DanishViking @ Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:22 am
Just to keep you all in the loop – so far it seems that the TV interview on a-Arabia with the Danish PM has not put a lit on things – and at the same time more and more European news papers are reprinting the cartoons (not in the UK). Seems like there are both a cliff between the Muslim world and continental Europe and between the UK and continental Europe.
BartSimpson I can’t help notice your involvement in this thread – but at the same time you are aware that the US will not go into all of this – religion in the US is of to great a value especially among the supporters of existing government.
- That’s my take anyhow 
DanishViking @ Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:02 am
Wow just saw BBC step up to the plate! In HARDtalk they had Flemming Rose (the editor of Jyllands-Posten) and Abu Laban (The Forman of the Islamic association in Denmark) – finally the hole story was told.
– IF YOU HAVE THE CHANCE TO SEE IT I WOULD VERY MUCH INCURRIGE YOU TO DO SO
gideon @ Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:28 am
Banff Banff:
putting past battles aside I just may be leaning your way a bit because I just don't understand what Islam wants . I'll read as much as I can about Islam relationships with the rest of the world but in the mean time I wonder if they were to be left alone would they stop bothering everyone else and why do we get involved ? There are many countries who just don't seem to want to and Western world/Islam were not always in conflict .
One might ask what we (the West) are expected to do to "leave them alone".
Does this involve curtailing our own citizens' freedom of speech, to bow to the demands of terrorists?
Perhaps they might consider ceasing terrorist activity if they don't like seeing pictures of Mo-"bomb"-ed in the morning paper.
Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16 Next