Should These Cartoons Be Banned?

[Charles Flynn]

One of the reasons Christians do not accept Muhammad's teachings is that he himself thought they were demonic in nature when he first received them.

[manxchatterbox]

in the last two millenium how many people have died due to disagreements about how say to make cheese??... and how many have died as a result of religious beliefs??

 

either you have to say mankind shoulde not have religions... or say anyone is free to have whatever religion they choose, nobody must accept a religion, and everyone can say anything they want about any other religion they don't belive in without fear of reprisal or violence....

 

..as I see it religion is the biggest cause of animosity and distrust amongst mankind and the sooner mankind sees there is a picture bigger than various groups vying to have a dominant religion the better...

[Charles Flynn]

The same reasoning would go for power blocs but who is going to stop it?

 

Darwin spoke of the survival of the fittest which probably means in his view these things will go on forever as part of nature.

[manxchatterbox]

keep an eye on the detail as well as the bigger picture....

[simon]

Darwin spoke of the survival of the fittest which probably means in his view these things will go on forever as part of nature.

 

This is a common misconception apparently.

 

Herbert Spencer, a philosopher, coined the term survival of the fittest.

 

Darwin wrote about the evolution of new species - based on their ability to adapt and the suitability of their characteristics with respect to their environments. Survival of the most fitted characteristcs maybe - but not necessarily the survival of the fittest.

[Wayfarer]

Excuse me if I don’t quote each poster… my post here would be a tad too long. Also, it’s difficult not to be selective so I’m not commenting of posts I agree with, those that have said nothing of importance and those I do not know enough about to comment upon. I mean no offense or disrespect to you.

 

Freedom of speech carries with it responsibilities. To publish images clearly designed to inflame sensibilities under the pretence of FOS is ignorant and base. Should a non-Muslim be free to create images of Allah? Yes, most definitely. Should he? Definitely no. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

 

With regard to the T-shirts. The censorship there is not to guard against the feelings of the US is targeting… it’s there to protect the feelings of the innocent civilians. It’s also a tactical measure, don’t upset the natives and you’ll have a better time of it. P.K.’s justification on the T-shirts on the basis of the wearers being war mongers is a little weak for the same reasons. Perhaps a better understanding of what the “Coalition of the willing” is doing in Iraq is needed?

 

WilDog’s post of 1/2/06 suggesting that the logical progression is to ban the Flintstones cartoon, Popeye et al is flawed. These examples are not designed to offend and therein the difference. “I hate hippies” is designed to offend, but it is so difficult to find a hippy to offend, then perhaps a likelyhood of a challenge outside a commune would be insignificant. In principle, however, it falls under the same ideal.

 

Scittney’s post of the burning of a girl’s school and the actions of the much feared PVPV is misdirected. The depiction of Allah in the cartoons offends Muslims all over the world. The actions of one extreme law enforcement agency does not speak for all Muslims just as the atrocities of the Nazis speak for all western culture.

 

Theintelligentthug says he feels he “must respect religious people’s religion” ergo “they must respect his lack of respect for religion” Surely it’s not the religion you’re asked to respect, you’re asked to respect them as you would have them respect you? Is there any decent future to be had in attacking each other’s beliefs? Is it not more mature to accept they have beliefs and so do you, and agree to differ?

 

Rog’s eat pork or die post quotes Leviticus 18:5 is a Jewish debate, the T-shirts were aimed at Muslims. Unless you’re hijacking the thread

 

HaX0red Account says “it's a total disgrace, simple as- millions died in WW2 to alllow freedom of speech”. Funny, I thought it was to halt the advance of Germany after invading Poland and thence to protect a way of life that included FOS as a smallish side dish served up by propaganda. In fact, I am straining my memory to think of any WWII reference to FOS per se.

 

Issues99. “but aren't these people terroists, please someone tell if this is wrong but thats just the impression i have.” I think these people are not terrorists but protesters.

 

Manxchatterbox puts forward a great argument is his post on this page, however I disagree with “..as I see it religion is the biggest cause of animosity and distrust amongst mankind and the sooner mankind sees there is a picture bigger than various groups vying to have a dominant religion the better...” I think it’s a long held belief (pun) that it’s not the teachings of religion it’s the people convinced they must act in it’s name when rallied for a political or cultural reason. Yes, a unified religion is a solution, so is communism on the same grounds

 

IMHO, the Danish cartoonists, who I understand are anonymous, and their publisher wronged Muslims under the ideal of FOS. Also FOS, and anonymity do not sit well together.

 

Lastly, the violent reaction of the Muslims burning buildings and what not as equally as bad.

[Chinahand]

Wayfarer, Thanks for a considered response. I enjoyed reading it and it has stimulated me to think more about the issues.

 

However ...

 

IMHO, the Danish cartoonists, who I understand are anonymous, and their publisher wronged Muslims under the ideal of FOS. Also FOS, and anonymity do not sit well together.

 

... isn't true.

 

The cartoons were all signed.

 

And I presume the cartoonists must be pretty scared. The fanatics who have demanded their decapitation and murder have followed up their demands many times before. I'm not going into a great long list of victims (though 2 seconds on google will find you them), but one who always stood out for me was Hitoshi Igarashi; he was an assistant professor of comparative culture at a university in Japan. He translated Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses into Japanese and for his pains was stabbed to death in July 1991.

 

I find the hubris of the fanatics, who take it upon themselves to enforce what they see as God's will, an unconscionable arrogance.

 

The United States (which is one of the few countries to really try to get to legislative grips with the issue) limits free speech via its creation of a clear and present danger. Shouting "Fire" without reason in a packed cinema creates a clear and present danger that someone will be hurt and so isn't covered via freedom of speech; the same applies to shouting "string him up" during a lynching.

 

I feel that this "clear and present danger" argument is now being inverted

 

The argument is being made that if you want to publish a picture portraying someone in a certain way and if you could have forseen that it would create such offence that a section of those so offended will take illegal and violent action against you (and those seen as supporting you ... the Danish embassy in Beruit!?) then you shouldn't publish.

 

Seems a good way to allow the fanatics to twist the law to their ends.

 

A play is put on, which a section of a community dislikes, what do the fanatics do; threaten to fire bomb the theatre and attack the audience. The theatre is told that their freedom of speach can no longer be supported as it is likely to result in violence; the play is closed down.

 

I feel this is totally and utterly wrong.

 

Offending people is one thing, but using this offence to do violence unjustifiably is quite another ... and I feel we should be condeming the latter alot more strongly.

[mollag]

It is difficult to critcise any of the previous posts as this is a subjective topic and all have merit but to step aside a moment, im thinking why this cause and why the exadurated response around the world?

 

The cartoons themselves arent really the point, i think myself that we may have come to a pivot point where the percieved notion, right or wrong, that the West is determined to wipe out Islam in its greed for oil, has set in the minds of many Islamic citizens. The cartoons are just a convenient start point for demonstrations and fightback.

 

Iraq looks more every day to de a disaster, similar with Afghanistan, Bush looks weak, Iran is telling the West to piss off and anyway in two years GWB will be gone to play the golf courses of the world taking his hawks with him. Perhaps these and other reasons have made the Islamic movers and shakers bold enough to, as they see it, fight back. Just a thought.

[P.K.]

With regard to the T-shirts. The censorship there is not to guard against the feelings of the US is targeting… it’s there to protect the feelings of the innocent civilians. It’s also a tactical measure, don’t upset the natives and you’ll have a better time of it. P.K.’s justification on the T-shirts on the basis of the wearers being war mongers is a little weak for the same reasons.

I'm not trying to justify anything. They were not war mongers, they were worn by soldiers. In a way mocking their own possible death. Young men a long way from home in a lethal situation behave like that you know. That's just the way it is.

 

There are about 1 million muslims in the UK. Of that lot probably a very small number were genuinely insulted by the cartoons. Well get this. The UK is NOT a muslim country. It is predominantly Christian. Our culture is one of tolerance and making fun of religion. If these insulted muslims think that the culture here is incompatible with their own then they can leave.

 

If a christian are you insulted by this for example?

 

[Charles Flynn]

Simon,

 

Thank you for your point about Survival of the Fittest being coined by Herbert Spencer who was a friend of Darwin's. Darwin preferred the term natural selection as do most biologists.

 

The phrase was used by Darwin in the 5th Edition of The Origin of Species published on the 10th February 1869 under 'natural selection'.

[Wayfarer]

The argument is being made that if you want to publish a picture portraying someone in a certain way and if you could have forseen that it would create such offence that a section of those so offended will take illegal and violent action against you (and those seen as supporting you ... the Danish embassy in Beruit!?) then you shouldn't publish.

Seems a good way to allow the fanatics to twist the law to their ends.

This is a good point. I wonder about the practicalities of this senario, though. Surely there's enough Muslims to get upset about these cartoons, but minority groups would have a difficult time? What other major groups might use this to advantage?

 

Thank you for correcting my understanding of the cartoonists identity; I was unable to find the article I read and unable to colaborate it elsewhere.

 

Chinahand's last comment

Offending people is one thing, but using this offence to do violence unjustifiably is quite another ... and I feel we should be condeming the latter alot more strongly.

is also put elegantly put, but I wonder at the word "unjustifiably". Extremists will always justify their actions, and a part of understanding them is to understand their reasoning. I'm not saying the violent reactions to this issue are justifiable, articles from Muslim's that I've read seem to agree, just that we need to keep an open mind about extremists or we'll fail to react correctly as the need arises.

 

From Mollag

It is difficult to critcise any of the previous posts as this is a subjective topic and all have merit…SNIP

. I don’t quite understand the origin of this comment. Why does it’s subjectivity invite a restriction to criticism? I didn’t set out to criticise anyone, merely to put my points of view across; whether they be right or wrong

 

I am sorry P.K. it does appear I put words into your mouth (fingertips?) You didn’t use the term war mongers; it was mine and I didn’t realise I did it. I remain, however, unconvinced that “just the way it is” makes it acceptable.

 

Well get this. The UK is NOT a muslim country. It is predominantly Christian. Our culture is one of tolerance and making fun of religion. If these insulted muslims think that the culture here is incompatible with their own then they can leave.

P.K. do you see anything wrong with the bits I bolded? Tolerant yet ready to kick them out if they don’t follow local culture?

 

I do agree that everyone should be more tolerant of others; Christians with Muslims and Jews and Jedi knights for all it’s worth, but tolerance works both ways.

 

I know that some Christians would be insulted by such an image, P.K. Is your question more about whether they would burn embassies and murder the publishers because of it? There are fanatics in all works of life. We went to a cat show recently. You ought to see the skull doggery (sp) that goes on there.

 

Lastly, is it common knowledge that these cartoons were published on 30th September? Four Months ago? Do you also know the following? From several sources including this Wikipedia* stolen quote:

A Muslim religious organisation in Denmark, Islamisk Trossamfund, played a large part in bringing attention to the cartoons to Muslims of the Middle East during a recent tour; allegedly, it added three additional images to the group and claimed that they had been published in Jyllands-Posten as well. These three images are all considerably more obscene than the published cartoons, and none of them had previously been published by Jyllands-Posten or any other mainstream media outlet.

To me, much of the controversy surrounding the protests has a smell. It smell's of spin doctor's and perhaps a terrorist organisation but I have nothing to back that up than a gut feeling. Am I being in-tolerant?

 

*I used wikipedia as a source because it's not a media outlet which are more prone to spin.

[Rog]

Well get this. The UK is NOT a muslim country. It is predominantly Christian. Our culture is one of tolerance and making fun of religion. If these insulted muslims think that the culture here is incompatible with their own then they can leave.

P.K. do you see anything wrong with the bits I bolded? Tolerant yet ready to kick them out if they don’t follow local culture?

 

There's no mention about kicking anyone out, simply a case of if they don't like our way of life and our freedoms then they have the option of getting out and going where they DO like what surrounds them.

 

I do agree that everyone should be more tolerant of others; Christians with Muslims and Jews and Jedi knights for all it’s worth, but tolerance works both ways.

 

Plainly you know little about islam. In islam virtually any form of treaty may be agreed whilst it's convenient, but the moment that treaty is no longer convenient --- all bets are off.

 

There is, despite all the guff, NO tolerance within islam towards the Dar Ul-Harb beyond that which exists just as long as it meets the overall islamic agenda.

 

I can even quote chapter and verse on the background on this if needs be.

 

There is the most massive ignorance regarding islam in the west fuelled by people telling lies about the basic islamic agenda, people hearing what they WANT to here, and a general misunderstanding based on the idea that islam is 'just another religion not all that dissimilar to Christianity and Judaism'.

 

IT IS NOT.

[Charles Flynn]

There are many differences.

 

The main one is that Allah is a God of judgement rather than love andHe is supreme.

 

Jesus is recognised as a major prophet but not as the Divine Son of God.

[Wayfarer]

Rog, I don’t know if P.K supports your view of what he meant, nor if he supports mine, that’s why I asked. Do you speak for P.K.? Anyway, if the UK is to be multicultural, is it not then a common ground that is being sought, not a take it or leave attitude?

 

The qualifier in my statement was "should". I did not say "are" or "is" or other operatives where you might infer that I believed Islam was or is tolerant. I didn’t make reference to Islam anyway. I was talking about people who practise their religion. My reasoning was from the fact that people interpret their faith on a personal level. Each takes from the Koran, or bible, what they will. Obviously there are extremes where some must have little choice in this, but I image they are a minority.

 

If I were a learned scholar of Islam as you are, I would surely find chapter and verse to repute what you say, alas I am not. So I am at a disadvantage. However, I can read the comments of others who practice Islam and they often say things along the lines of how people can distort the Koran and it’s multitude of teachings to suit their own agenda. Just as the Christians and Jews will do with the bible.

 

You seem angry with what I’ve expressed as my opinion. Surely any reasonable debate leaves emotions at the door?

[theintelligentthug]

im sorry if this offends anyone on the site, but;

 

im sick of hearing the term "minority" when in reference to the people who are settign fire to buildings et al. all the way from london to jakarta, there have been marches and demonstrations. thats a BIG minority. true, its not muslims/islam per se, but i dont see much action being taken by the so-called "tolerant" muslims to combat this action.

 

 

still, i think the whole situation is hilarious; a picture of mohammed is drawn, depicting him as a terrorist. some muslims take offence and say "were not terrorists", and promptly set fire to the danish embassy.

 

*applauds*