I felt this issue was interesting enough to get its own thread.
When you think about it its a pretty complex issue..

I fail to see how it's more "complex" than - say - the creationist teach the controversy scam. The imamic outrage has about the same merit. Blasphemy is central to maintaining a civilised society, and if fascist extremists can't take that, then they can take a hike.

On the other hand its obviously something that is very dear to the heart of a lot of muslims

Your point? Stupidity is stupidity. That the fascist extremists hold their stupidity very dear doesn't make it any less stupid. Why should we wrap morons in cotton?

(and not just the extremists [...]).

I disagree. Anyone who takes blasphemy personally (or even seriously) is, by definition, an extremist.

So where does freedom of speech end, and causing needless insult begin?

Insults against religion are never 'needless'. Religion - all religion - must be kept in its place through the repeated and forceful application of denigration, insult, mockery, and blasphemy. And if that ruffles some feathers, well too friggin bad. Domesticating religion is like toilet training a dog. There'll be a lot of bitching and whining about it, and sometimes it requires you to use a newspaper as a blunt instrument.

However pictures of mohammed are forbidden in the quran to prevent idolatary.. so the book's illustrator stayed annonymous for fear of hatred.

No. Not for fear of hatred. For fear of hate crimes which is something altogether different.

To prove they WEREN'T scared of hated a danish paper printed a fairly insulting image of mohammed as a mad bomber... and then got in loads of grief and had to appologise. There it ended... almost.

Then, as a lot of people in europe take freedom of speech very seriously, a french paper reprinted the cartoon...

No, let's get the chronology right.

Inbetween those two events, a small group of fascist imams who have consistently been engaged in fifth-collumn activities in the name of the global caliphate (their phrase), and many of whom are active members of the fascist Hizb al Tahrir party, went on a propaganda tour to the Middle East.

It's not exactly clear what the hell they were doing down there, and they've repeatedly been caught lying about it with a straight face, but the general facts are known (http://x802.putfile.com/videos/c7-3822295790.wmv).

Additionally Abu Laban has been caught lying to a live mike about how many moslims the Islamic Society of Denmark [sic] actually represent. It turns out that these fascist swines inflated the number of their supporters by more than an order of magnitude.

Further, the same Abu Laban - and other representatives of the Islamic Society of Denmark [sic] and/or Hizb al Tahrir (it's not exactly clear who or what these fascists actually represent), has repeatedly been caught flat-out lying about the interviews they've given to various non-western media ("I did not have an inapropriate relationship with that TV-station").

And that is what set off the affair.

Muslim in europe march in protest, with banners calling for attacks on denmark. But aren't they exercisig the same freedom of speach they are so upset about the paper using?

Hypocricy has never bothered fascists. It didn't bother the Sturmabteilung, it doesn't bother Rushdoony or Ratzinger, it won't bother Hizb al Tahrir.

Do they just need to "toughen up" and become immune to such things in the same way christians have... or would that be a sign of islam becoming marginalised in their lives like christianity has in a lot of our lives?

Yes and yes.

On the other hand, i remember major protests and threats from christians in the UK outside the theatre showing Jerry springer the Opera... because it featured an insulting portrayal of jesus - so maybe we aren't so differnent after all.

I'm surprised that you include yourself in that 'we.' I certainly don't.

On a side note... on the same day this all broke out two British National Party leaders were aquitted of "incitement to racial hatred" charges in the british courts over speaches they made about immigrants and asylum seekers.. they hailed this as a great day for free speech.

Fascism should not be censored. It should be exposed. Keep shining light into the gutter of racist/nationalist/theocratist organisations, and they'll have to clean up or be marginalised. The very fact that the pathetic enablers and appeasers in parts of the western press has so far refused to subject the wingnut moslims to that treatment accounts in large part for their present inanities.

[Y]ou shouldn't purposefully do something like that knowing full well that it will be viewed as offensive. It's like deciding it'd be a good idea to urinate on a crucifix and then masturbate on a bible.

In what ways would those be bad ideas, Sith?

[T]hey shouldn't have printed it in the first place. Respect for other people ranks way higher for me than to have the right to say something.

Why do you respect fascism? Should we also refrain from printing a picture of a pig in a HiPo uniform because it would insult the tender sensibilities of neo-nazis?

I believe that even if the danish paper didnґt do the right thing publishing the cartoons

Why?

If the freedom of speech lets Arabian newspapers publish offensive cartoons for the christians, the same freedom of speech lets the danish publish those cartoons. Another thing is that either we donґt know or we donґt care of those "agressions" against "us". Maybe this is because we have left aside the era of the fanatism. And Why?

The Pain (http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly060215a.htm) has a nice take on that:

There’s something kind of poignant and pathetic about the footage of furious Arabs whapping American and Danish flags with shoes and setting them on fire, as though this could hurt us in the same way that the cartoons of Mohammed have hurt them. They have, as the saying goes, obviously mistaken us for someone who gives a ****.

[...]

The bemused incomprehension I feel for those outraged rioters is that of a culture that no longer believes in the image contemplating one that still does, passionately and literally. Of course it’s also that of someone who’s enjoyed relative safety, privilege, and luxury his whole life rolling his eyes at the paranoia and rage of people who’ve always been threatened, oppressed, and impoverished. However, although this may make their reaction more understandable, I am not sure it makes it any less stupid or wrong.

Emphasis mine.

Plain and simple it was just darn rude of the Danes to publish that.

Your point?

It was disrespectful to Muslims,

So what?

and abusing their 'freedom'.

Why?

Freedom of Speech means that we have a right to speak freely, but that doesn't negate the use of respect for others.

Respect is not something you have a right to. Respect is something you earn. And so far, Islam has done nothing to earn my respect. I will tolerate it, but I will not go out of my way to avoid hurting the tender sensibilities of the followers of a doctrine that I view as a medieval leftover.

It was pointless for a picture of Mohammed to be published;

Au contraire. It was a submission in a domestic Danish debate about how we deal (or fail to deal) with Islamic extremists like Abu Laban, Abdul Wahid Pedersen, Fatih Alev, and Ahmed Akkra. It was an attack on theocratic fascists - whatever name they choose to go by. I fail to see how anti-fascism can ever be pointless.

the only purpose it served was to cause trouble, and, of course, prove that they have Freedom of Speech so they can publish anything they damn well want to.

Not quite. This 'issue' has had several important and desirable consequences, including but not limited to:


The formation of the organisation 'Democratic Moslims,' by moslim anti-fascists to combat the illegitimate, anti-democratic, and medieval doctrines of the Hizb al Tahrir party, and their sister organisation, the Islamic Society of Denmark [sic].
Highlighting of the fact that the Islamic Society of Denmark [sic] is, in fact, nothing more than useful idiots, gophers, apologets, enablers, and spokespeople for the fascist Hizb al Tahrir party.
Highlighting of the fact that the fascist Hizb al Tahrir party and their sister organisation, the Islamic Society of Denmark, do, in fact, represent less than ten percent of all Danish moslims.
Highlighting of the fact that the prominent Danish imams (Pedersen, Laban, et al are nothing but pathetic liars and apologets.


All of these are important contributions to the fight against fascism in Denmark.

A little respect will go a long way.

Respect for what? Medieval dogma? The fascist doctrines of the illegitimate and anti-democratic Hizb al Tahrir party? Barbaric 'cultures' where blasphemy is still taboo?

Give me one good reason. And peace in our time doesn't count.

Meh - stupid v.Bulletin chewed up my post when it got too long...

No one ever has any right to treat the beliefs of other's as if they aren't true and therefore those belifs don't matter.

Why not? Why can we not tell creationists that their lunacy is - well - lunacy? Why can we not tell the RCC that their dogmatic and inhumane stand on contraceptives is - well - dogmatic and inhumane? Why can we not tell Pastafarians that their silly insistence on wearing pirate garb is - well - silly?

Everyone has their beliefs and almost everyone thinks that they are right. Sure there are those that will question what they've been taught, but the truth is that folks believe what they know is right.

How did 'think is right' mutate to 'know is right' all of a sudden? If they 'think' something is right and act like they 'know' it's right, then they will be mocked. And for good reason.

So while you may not aggree with what someone else knows to be true,

Knows to be true? Or wishes to be true?

or what someone totally adheres to as part of their religion, that doesn't make it okay to publish something that obviously goes against another religion, e.g. Muslim.

Why not?

My point here is this: No matter what you believe so deeply to be true, others should be respected in their beliefs, even if you don't agree.

Why should we respect creationists for their creationism? Why should we respect holocaust-deniers for their holocaust-denial?

Freedom of Speech is just that 'Freedom', but the freedom to say or publish anything, doesn't mean that respect should be tossed out the window.

And who are to judge what constitues legitimate critisism and what is respectless provocation? The Papacy? The Imams? The Brownshirts?

As Dark Matter so eloquently puts it (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/the_rusedennett_feud.php) on Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/):

There will be no "respectful observance of areas of expertise", there will be only *incremental surrender* to theocrats if one is foolish enough to think the theoctats will stay in their "backyard".

Anyone who believes this is fooling himself (or engaging in willful blindness)

So fine, Muslims need to 'toughen up'. If that's the case then every religion needs to as well.

That's the point.

But I think that this should be double sided: Meaning that folks of different beliefs shouldn't say/do/publish things that are obviously going to be hurtful to others.

The cartoons were only hurtful to extremists. I fail to see why we should 'respect' extremists, or walk on rotten eggs around their tender sensibilities.

One thought: If making pictures of mohammed is forbidden to prevent idol worship.. and obviously this cartoon was never intended and would never be taken as an idol to worship... then technically it wouldn't be against Islamic law... but the original pro-islam kids book would be.



But it is rude.

Duh. Being rude is the friggin' point of newspaper cartoons! Newspaper cartoons were introduced in Denmark as a means to attack political opponents.

They were employed forcefully by the liberal movement that fought for a democratic constitution. They were later employed forcefully by the liberal movement to attack Estrup's provisional rule. And they were employed - forcefully - to attack the nazi swines who occupied our country from '40 to '45.

Why shouldn't we use them against fundamentalist swines as well?

Another, talking now about activities in western countries, not in islamic ones: If muslims that come to western countries make use of freedom of speech to call for the death of those making such cartoons.. or attacks on the countries that the papers were in.. do they then lose the right to complain about the cartoon. Because if they want the freedom to make their comments surely they can't deny it to others.

As I said before, hypocricy doesn't bother these people. Like creationists, they have no problem with Lying for Jesus (or, in this case, Mohammed). Like creationists, they have no problem using special pleading and double standards. And like creationists, they must be ridiculed and denigrated at every turn. If we wish to retain our freedom, fundamentalist fascists must be denied.

I gotta say, considering the amount of "mobs burning flags" media coverage, i'm a little surprised that most of you fel the paper was at fault.

I'm not. The most chilling discovery I made during this entire 'controversy' was that most self-proclaimed intellectuals in the West has learned nothing at all from the Rushdie debacle. They are still appeasing. They are still enabling. They are still apologising. They are still bartering fruitlessly for peace in our time.

There's a difference between calling for action and making slighted drawings of a religious figure.

Yes, calling for action against an independent newspaper because it printed something blasphemous is illegitimate. Slighting a religious figure is an act of patriotic anti-fascism.

Also slander and libel aren't exactly protected by freedom of speech, therefore this isn't exactly covered by that.

The cartoons are neither. Slander and libel are untrue accusations or usupported and denigrating comments made against a person or group of persons. The cartoons are an attack on a religious cult. Religious cults - like political parties - are not legal persons, and so enjoy no protection from attacks of this sort. Secondly, it turned out that the attack was not at all unsubstantiated - which is the requirement for a slander charge.

You can't just spout off any and everything you think and believe it's part of your freedom of speech, you actually have to have support to your claims.

Which unsupported assertions were made? I don't see any.

While none of you can really do much about it, I could call you all thick-headed fag-hags, this doesn't make it true nor is it covered by free speech. It falls under slander(spoken)/libel(written) and harassment.

Because it is directed at a person or group of persons. Religious cults/religious figures are not persons, and so calling the Q'ran an immature, retarded piece of utter bovine manure has nothing to do with slander.

The issue of free speech and free press is a tricky one,

No! It's a card-board-cut-out bolted-down right. Claiming otherwise is nothing but apologetics for censorship.

and in truth, freedom of speech and press is meant to protect the few and innocent.

The freedom of the press is meant to ensure that a free, honest, and open debate can be advanced. The freedom of the press is meant to prevent fascists like Abu Laban and the Hizb al Tahrir party, and despots like 'President' George W. Bush from silencing dissenting voices.

But I believe that we have here the crux of your hypocricy: You view Moslems as a persecuted minority, and so they should be protected at all cost. You are wrong on every level: Moslems aren't persecuted; Islam is. Islam should not be protected because it is being persecuted; persecution of religious cults is an essential component of civilised society. And no-one should be protected at all cost. No amount of oppression - real or imagined - justifies silencing blasphemers.

What this newspaper has done is effectively done the exact opposite of what the rights are there for.

I beg to differ. JyllandsPosten has contributed more than any other Danish newspaper - or, for that matter, electronic news agency - to the battle against neo-religion. JyllandsPosten is the only news agency in Denmark to consistently (and in the face of massive reader protest) argue against creationism. JyllandsPosten is the only newspaper in Denmark to consistently argue that religion should have no part in the political process. JyllandsPosten is the only news agency in Denmark to consistently point out that religious arguments cannot and must not be given any weight in a serious debate.

It is greatly ironic - and more than a little tragic - that a conservative newspaper should be the one to lift the heritage of Voltaire, Descarte, Brandes, and Ibsen. This, more than anything, shows that the Left is no longer deserving of the name. That those who profess to be left-of-centre are all too often nothing of the sort: Far too many hide behind pious masks of 'respect' or 'understanding' or 'cultural diversity', when they should be saying 'apologetics' and 'fear' and 'appeasement'. I spit upon their lies and their cowardice.

And even if you are very offended by a "blasphemy" you canґt burn the Danish embassy at Beirut. Acts like this can turn in a very serious diplomatic crisis,

Not to be a nitpicker, I was of the impression that the diplomatic crisis caused the assaults on the embassies, not the other way about... OTOH, you are certainly right that assaulting embassies is over the top. Burning flags is distasteful, but it's beginning to loose its lustre from overuse. But assaulting embassies is, IMHO, a definite no-no.

Whats the matter? they donґt understand that in Europe the gobernments arenґt responsible of the newspaper publications? they donґt know that the people from the country isnґt guilty?

Actually, I think that's no, they don't, and no, they don't. I don't think any of us (save perhaps our American comrades) can imagine what it's like to live in a country where the government has absolute control over the media. By the same token, why should we expect people with far less opportunity to get foreign stimuli to be able to imagine a government that can't just pick up the phone and tell a major newspaper to shut up and sit down.

To the second question: What is your impression of the average Saudi? And why should we expect the saudis to have a more nuanced view of the average Dane than we have of them?

I donґt want to sound it like a menace, but maybe the countries will start helping less the arabs in Palestina and other places. If they are democratic "in their way" we are democratics in our way.

I don't want to sound like a nitpicker, but I can't divine your point from that mess. But if your point is what I think it is, it would be a Bad Idea.

Anyone who takes blasphemy personally (or even seriously) is, by definition, an extremist.What definition is that?

In what ways would those be bad ideas, Sith?

A better question would be how is that a good idea?

What definition is that?

What are you, a frickin' idiot?!?!

Main Entry: ex·trem·ist
Pronunciation: ik-'strE-"mi-s&t
Function: noun
1 : Anyone who takes blasphemy personally
2 : Anyone who takes blasphemy seriously

See?!? QED!

:xp: ;)


Mike

A lot of people can take blasphemy seriously and not not strap bombs to their bodies to seek some great reward by killing infidels in a suicide attack. Yes, that is critical of Islamic extremists, but that is certainly...with the possible exception of genocide of Jews or homosexuals or those who are an affront to some religion, the most extreme action in the name (so the people who perpetrate these acts justify) of religion.

In my opinion, this smells to be a plan to increase the tension in the world, plan prepared by the fanatics.

That's not how I read the situation. I think that what we see here is the result of decades of pent-up frustration with European and American policies in the Middle East. I don't believe that there's a 'master plan' to harness that anger and frustration - if for no other reason than the fact that it would be impossible to conceal such a plot.

What I think we're seeing is a foreign policy crisis engineered by a cabal of fascist imams who have chosen an issue that they knew they could use to inflame passions and link to the aforementioned arrogant and short-sighted Western policies in the Middle East. And they have succeeded because they have chosen a proxy conflict in which no democratic government can back down.

The cartoons are not the issue. Banning blasphemy in our newspapers will not help prevent similiar crises in the future. Arrogant, short-sighted, and counter-productive Western policies in the Middle East over the past five decades are the ultimate cause of this crisis. And it is for that policy that we should apologise, not for a wholly legitimate use of the freedom of the press to attack a fascist cult.

...We're talking about an evangalistic cult that is bent on world domination and death to those that don't believe it.
Um, no. It's only the 'religious nutters' within Islam that want that

And the cartoons were aimed at those extremists.

I think Muslims have a right to feel insulted by cartoons that mock their faith or criticize their prophet.

This isn't over their right to feel insulted... They can feel insulted all day long for all I care. It's about whether their religious feelings should be allowed to censor what an independent newspaper publishes on its editorial pages.

The papers had every right to publish those cartoons, but really should have stopped and considered the reactions they might receive before publishing them. It seems like a bit of a deliberate provocation if you ask me.

They did, and it was. As I have previously explained - at lenght - the deliberate provocation was a legitimate part of a domestic Danish debate, and there were - and are - very compelling reasons to publish such provocations.

Like I said, the reactions prove the very point the cartoons were illustrating: religion is a problem for society more than an answer.

And the real irony of the whole farce is that the article surrounding the cartoons contained several inflammatory accusations (not made by the paper, BTW) about islamic wingnuttery. If the Islamic Society of Denmark [sic] hadn't made a big issue out of the cartoons, they could have complained about 'baseless accusations' and 'gross misrepresentations.'

And who knows, they might actually have had a case. Of course, they wouldn't have had a cause, and I get the distinct impression that fundies are more than willing to sacrifice the former to obtain the latter.

And all this flag burning must be making a lot of money for the flag making business.

The protesters make their own flags. They are quite adept at that (as well they should be, considering how many American and Israeli flags they've burned over the years :D)

I know it's not a popular thing to say, but I think it would be hillarious to see Muslims treated with the same 'haha, you ****ers are rediculous' scrutiny that Christians come up against anymore. Especially here. Everyone is SOOO scared to offend the poor, oppressed Muslim. ****ing lame. ONOES!PLEAESTONOTBEBLOWINGMYASSUPTHNXBYE! **** a Muslim. And a Christian. And an atheist. And anybody who looks like one of those.

I cannot condone the language used, but I agree with the substance.

But even though most Christians and Jews have decided to forgo this particular battle, should that mean that every group should be expected to follow suit, and not react when something they hold Holy is thrust in their face?

This isn't a Christianity vs. Islam issue. It's a Secularity vs. Theocracy issue. If Christianity likes allowing people to make graven images, well, no skin off my nose. But that's beside the point. If Islam wants to bar me from making (or publishing) graven images, then Islam will have to shut up and sit down. No skin off my nose, either.

And again,.. my big problem with what the papers did is that it seemed somewhat like a deliberate provocation: "Let's go out of our way to come up with something that Muslims will surely find offensive!"

Why is that a problem?

Kinda like flushing the Koran...

Not at all. The Q'ran is a book, and destroying books has - ah - negative connotations.

A little effort towards cultural sensitivity can go a long way.

Why should we be 'sensitive' to a culture that we find fundamentally repulsive?

Or, more to the point, why should we not view Islam as part of our culture? When the Christian part of our culture was acting up like Islam is now, Christianity was subjected to much the same treatment Islam is being subjected to now. Systematic ridicule. Systematic denigration. Deliberate offense and blasphemy. In short, a systematic campaign to make it shameful to publicly profess to be a practicing Christian.

Now Islam is part of our culture. Why should we not do the same thing again? Why is it OK to try to stamp out Christianity from our culture, but not OK to do the same thing to Islam? After all, I don't hear any of you complaining about Henrik Ibsen's plays...

Especially if we are really trying to convince the Muslims of the world that "War on Terror" isn't really shorthand for "New Western Christian Crusade to rid Islam from the Planet."

First things first: The WoT is a ridiculously stupid con-job. I will not sacrifice the freedom of the press to a made-up con-job any more than I will sacrifice the right to privacy or the right to a fair trial. Or, for that matter, the prohibition against torture. If the freedom of the press makes life tough on the WoT, then so much the better.

We can work on thickening skin later...

"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half."

- Sir Winston Churchill, British politician (1874 - 1965)

Catholics don't believe crucifixes, nativity scenes, etc violate the 2nd commandment because those things are not being worshipped. What is being represented by them (God) is [...] Additionally, praying to anyone else like saints is not a violation either, because we aren't worshipping them, just asking for their help to worship God.

Those differences are one of those theological distinctions I've never been quite able to grasp. But thanks to Kurgan for trying to clear things up in his following post anyway.

I believe that no one has the right to make fun of another religion...

So sharp jokes about Creationism is a no-no? And calling FSMism a 'joke religion' is out of the question too, I suppose?

especially if it is so controversial right now...

There is no controversy. The imams have no valid complaints.

Freedom of speech/press does exist, but it comes to a point where you have to say "that's not right." think of it this way...They have rules in school saying that you cannot swear and can't wear vulgar shirts, and stuff like that. Apply that to real life and it basically is saying that you have freedoms but don't abuse them.

Again: Who is to judge what is use and what is abuse? You? The Pope? Abu Laban? Isaac Newton? Jan Guillou? Until you can answer that question, your comment is vacuous.

Somebody might reverence a statue of Jesus or a carving of the ten commandments for what it represents, rather than the object itself, as if it had any real power. Compare to issues about flag burning, etc.

What makes flag burning distasteful is not so much the offense some people might take at seing their flag burned, as it is the fact that the flag represents the sovereignty of a country: If you haul in the flag, it is a universal signal of surrender; When you conquer a fortress, you raise your flag over it; Embassies and border guard posts use flags to denote the fact that you enter an area that is under the sovereignty of the country in question; Sailing under a country's flag means that you are governed by the laws of that country, etc, etc.

Much the same goes for vandalising books. It's not so much the fact that the books themselves have emotions attatched to them, it's the fact that vandalising them sends the message that you are not interested in debating their content. Vandalising a flag sends a very real message: We do not acknowledge your sovereignty, the same way that vandalising a book sends the clear message: We will not even consider your points. And we will use force to prevent others from considering your points.

Be back later.

- JS

What definition is that?

That would be this one (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=extremist):

Main Entry: Extremist
Part of Speech: Noun
Definition: Zealot
Synonyms: agitator, die-hard, fanatic, radical, revolutionary, revolutionist, ultra, ultraist

My emphasis.

In what ways would those be bad ideas, Sith?
A better question would be how is that a good idea?

In the same way that singing rude songs about nazis is a good idea.

A lot of people can take blasphemy seriously and not not strap bombs to their bodies to seek some great reward by killing infidels in a suicide attack.

Uh-huh. One need not murder people directly to be an extremist. Jerry Falwell and Pat(wa) Robertson, or Rushdoony, Ahmanson, and Shaeffer, for instance, are all extremists, but none of them murder people (OK, one might argue that Pat(wa) Robertson does by proxy, but that's for another time). Yet no-one is (hopefully) in any doubt that these are radical fascist extremists who must be denied and defeated.

I had the amazing opportunity yesterday to speak with some aid worker/missionaries who have been working in Afghanistan for the past 4 years, and one of the things we discussed was the cartoon controversy.

They said that the town they work in has had a little bit of violence, but not much. Basically what would happen is that a gang of extremists would come into town to stir people up & try to start a riot. The thing that kept them from major violence in their town was that the local mullas weren't buying into the hatemongering (the quick response of local police & German military helped, too). I don't know if this is typical of the violence, but if it is, it's kind of a good sign - that the violence is primarily being perpetrated by smaller groups.

Another thing that they said was that very no one that they had come into contact with was really upset about the cartoons, and that they believed that the rioting really had nothing to do with the cartoons - the cartoons were more of an excuse for extremists to whip up anti-Western violence.

And the cartoons were aimed at those extremists.

Except they affect more than just the extremists. Basically it's like the U.S. bombing the **** out of a city in Iraq. Sure, a few bad guys get hurt, but so do a lot of innocent civilians. Only no physical damage, and in the form of illustration.

I think a little bit more intelligence could've been put into the cartoon. There is a legitimate target, that'd be the militant muslims, this cartoon however targets every muslim.

And no Shadow, I don't believe Muslims should be protected. But I do feel innocent people should be free from attack. You bring up examples of nazi's and other political figures. Well, those are guided attacks against a very obvious enemy. This is more comparable to just calling all of Germany "naziland". And while in that period it pretty much was, the implication (or at least assumed implication) would say that all Germans are, therefore, nazi's.

Basically, they should have put more thought into this, if their target was the militant groups.

I do however feel quite a lot of the groups protesting/attacking/etc. are being complete and utter ****wads.

In the same way that singing rude songs about nazis is a good idea.

I still fail to see the good idea part. Microwave popcorn is a good idea. The internal combustion engine is a good idea. The theory of relativity is a good idea. Wanking off on a bible and singing anti nazi songs, however entertaining as they might be, don't really seem to rate as a good idea, to me anyway.

Except they affect more than just the extremists.

I happen to subscribe to the notion that being offended by blasphemy is extremism.

Basically it's like the U.S. bombing the **** out of a city in Iraq. Sure, a few bad guys get hurt, but so do a lot of innocent civilians. Only no physical damage, and in the form of illustration.

My emphasis. Hurt feelings are part and parcel of a living democracy. Sorry, Sithy, cost of doing business.

I think a little bit more intelligence could've been put into the cartoon. There is a legitimate target, that'd be the militant muslims, this cartoon however targets every muslim.

How? I've still not seen a single convincing argument that the cartoons target Muslims. They target Islam, I get that. But that's not the same as targetting Muslims.

I do feel innocent people should be free from attack. You bring up examples of nazi's and other political figures. Well, those are guided attacks against a very obvious enemy.

So are these. The enemy is Islam. The week before, the enemy attacked was Christianity. And a while back the same paper printed a scathing editorial condemning creationism. I fail to see the difference.

This is more comparable to just calling all of Germany "naziland".

No, here's the difference: You choose to take Islam seriously. You do not choose to be born in Germany. And Germany is not naziland anymore, so calling Germany that would be factually wrong. I don't see any statements in those cartoons - be they explicit or implicit - that are factually wrong.

And while in that period it pretty much was, the implication (or at least assumed implication) would say that all Germans are, therefore, nazi's.

Uh, nope. Israel is a Jewish country. Does that imply that all Israeli are Jews?

Basically, they should have put more thought into this, if their target was the militant groups.

Their target was the extremist groups, which is a rather wider cathegory. And, as I stated above, the provocation had several desireable effects vis-a-vis our battle against said extremist groups. That some people get a little riled up is just too bad.

Except they affect more than just the extremists.

Of course they do. That is part of the point. Moderate and mainstream Islam has failed to contain its extremist minority. This is probably because there is a very large, perhaps majority, number of Muslims that silently agree with the extremist position. They agree vocally on occasion but they agree mostly by not opposing the militants and extremists. They ALLOW the violence to occur. The cartoons force them now to address and the STILL DON'T.

Basically it's like the U.S. bombing the **** out of a city in Iraq.

Its nothing like "bombing" a city in Iraq. A cartoon is an illustration. A bomb is an high explosive. One is printed on paper and distributed to those willing to purchase it. The other is delivered by someone with the direct intent to kill others. If someone dies over a cartoon, it says FAR, FAR more about the people doing the killing than it does about the cartoonists.

I think a little bit more intelligence could've been put into the cartoon. There is a legitimate target, that'd be the militant muslims, this cartoon however targets every muslim.

And, as I've argued, every Muslim should be the target because they allow the extremists and militants to exist and proliferate within their religion.

This is more comparable to just calling all of Germany "naziland". And while in that period it pretty much was, the implication (or at least assumed implication) would say that all Germans are, therefore, nazi's.

And you should be free to draw and publish a cartoon that makes that statement. But if the cartoon is in a widely read publication, you'll deserve the ridicule and counter-parody that you'll get. You won't have citizens of Germany marching on the American embassy, burning flags or killing American tourists and businessmen over it. They'll probably respond with cartoons depicting the genocide of the Native Americans.

While we're on the subject of Free Speech and criticizing the Muslim world for taking a hard line approach to it, we cannot forget that there is a major Free Speech violation going on in Austria right now that serves to remind me just how medieval some of Europes laws still are.

David Irving was jailed for 3 years in a sentence handed to him for violating an Austrian law that says it is a crime if a person “denies, grossly trivializes, approves or seeks to justify the National Socialist genocide or other national socialist crimes against humanity.”

Irving had traveled to Austria in November, 2005 to deliver a lecture to a far-right student fraternity, but was arrested on a warrant dating back to 1989, when he gave a speech and interview denying the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. After pleading guilty to the charge, Irving told the court, “I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz,” and “The Nazis did murder millions of Jews.”

David Irving was, and probably still is, a Holocaust denier in spite of his comment above. But should one be jailed in Western society for dissenting against an accepted and popular view? Isn't that just one step from being jailed for dissenting from a state accepted religion or even a policy? Today, you may be imprisoned or fined for dissenting from the accepted Holocaust history in the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland.

This is a bad law in my view. Irving is a putz, but he shouldn't be jailed for it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to think that it’s a war against religion made by anti-religious like you… well I am sorry if my words seemed a bit offensive, but the theory that you've propose might be wrong, coz now everybody is speaking about a religious war, most of Moslems think that other religions are attacking them and what made them more sure about it is the imprisoning of David Irving, which represented that the west world is dealing seriously with other religions while they attack Islam in the name of freedom of speech…
what David Irving did was also a freedom of speech (in your point of view), and when Iran president mocked of the holocaust they attacked him while they called mocking of Islam freedom of speech, so that double-face dealing make us wonder about the seriousity of those who speak in the name of freedom.

so that double-face dealing make us wonder about the seriousity of those who speak in the name of freedom.

There's no contradiction. I'm in favor of ridicule and dissent, even when its wrong. I'm also in favor of mocking that ridicule and dissent with counter-arguments and counter-ridicule.

The killing of people and the destruction of private property and the call to murder a person by a "religious figure" is wrong. Moreover, it serves to demonstrate the very point of the cartoons: that Islam tolerates violence to obtain its goals.

@Korf: I have a friend. He's called Uppercase Letters. I think you should meet him, he's a really nice guy.

@Skin: No, that's not what I mean. That's what the talk.origins regulars call argumentum ad CAPSLOCK :D

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to think that it’s a war against religion made by anti-religious like you…

War is the wrong term, we didn't start it, and - so far - the casualties have been limited. But substantially, you're right.

the theory that you've propose might be wrong, coz now everybody is speaking about a religious war, most of Moslems think that other religions are attacking them

Quite apart from the fact that the connection between my 'theory' and Moslem sentiments is not crystal clear, there are (at least) three seperate issues here to be adressed:

1) The relationship between Islam and other religions. The concept of religious war is as old as religion itself, and frankly I could hardly care less which nutjob mythology is attacking and which is being attacked this week.

2) The relationship between Islam and secular society. Here, Islam is clearly overstepping the boundries of its domain, and must be put back where it belongs. And if the mullahs and ayatollah-wanna-bes don't get it, then too bad for them.

3) The relationship between other religions and secular society. This is an entirely seperate issue from #2. Several other religions are doing their dead level best to pollute society. They must be denied. Failure to do so is not only hypocricy, it is - ultimately - a problem for civilisation. This, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

and what made them more sure about it is the imprisoning of David Irving, which represented that the west world is dealing seriously with other religions

Maybe it's just my evil, secularist mindset, but I fail to see how imprisoning a holocaust-denier represents 'dealing seriously with other religions.' Perchance you could enlighten us?

while they attack Islam in the name of freedom of speech…

No. We attack Islam in the name of civilisation, democracy, and progress. We defend freedom of speech, when madhat imams challenge our right to attack Islam.

what David Irving did was also a freedom of speech (in your point of view),

I must have missed the post where I expressed my support for the imprisonment of Irving. Could you please point it out for me?

and when Iran president mocked of the holocaust they attacked him while they called mocking of Islam freedom of speech,

Two points. One: When was his right to believe in historical revisionism challenged? When was his right to express such beliefs challenged?

Two: Holocaust denial is not an attack on a religion. It is not an attack on a doctrine or mythology. It is not an attack on a political position. At best, it is a show of ignorance unworthy of the president of a nuclear power to be. At worst, it is an out-and-out lie.

The holocaust, the Inquisition, the persecution of Gallilei and the banning of Copernicus' Revolutions are historical facts. Denying them is the historical equivalent of Young-Earth Creationism.

And, in case you missed the point the first time around, the mockery of Islam was not freedom of speech. It was covered by the freedom of the press. Which is not quite the same thing.

There's no contradiction. I'm in favor of ridicule and dissent, even when its wrong. I'm also in favor of mocking that ridicule and dissent with counter-arguments and counter-ridicule.

The KILLING OF PEOPLE and the DESTRUCTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY and the CALL TO MURDER A PERSON by a RELIGIOUS FIGURE is wrong. Moreover, it serves to DEMONSTRATE THE VERY POINT OF THE CARTOONS: that Islam tolerates violence to obtain its goals.

do you always act like that??????

nobody is talking about you, yu've said that you do not approve the jailing of DI, i'm talking about the countries that deal with some people deferently thatn others, the countries that stood against everyone who mocked of the holocaust are the same countries that reprinted the cartoons in teh name of freedom of speach, and are the same countries that forbade "al-manar" tv from showing by accusing them of being anti-semitics, so where is the freedom of speach that they are talking about!!!!!!!!

and again, its not Islam that is violence, read its book to know, its only a few people who are using Islam to acheave thier goals, there are alot of muslems who did protest against Ben-laden, and there are alot of those (and i am one of them) who did not protest in the last accidents...so your problem is not with any religion itself, its with those who are in power and using thier power in the name of the religion, not only Islam but all of others...

@ ShadowTemplar : when i said "they" i wasnt talk about you, i respected your beliefs, i have some anti-religion friends and i know your point of view and i am not inteding to change it coz i believe in the freedom of people, so i didnt mean that you support the imprisonment of Irving coz i wasnt talking about you...so i hope i've cleared my point of view.

i know that the holocaust thing is a historical fact and i am not against it, but if one is then he is free, there are alot of historical facts that people do not believe in, and its thier right to not believe in it...and for the facts, Iran president was attacked by Bush and other europian leaders because of his sayings.

do you always act like that??????

Yep, that's Skin in a nutshell. Although he doesn't usually shout that much.

i'm talking about the countries that deal with some people deferently thatn others, the countries that stood against everyone who mocked of the holocaust

Uh-huh. Most civilised countries 'take a stand' against holocaust denial, because holocaust denial is historical revisionism. But I will note that, contrary to the impression one gets from reading Korf's posts, it is criminalised only in a small minority of Western countries.

are the same countries that reprinted the cartoons in teh name of freedom of speach, and are the same countries that forbade "al-manar" tv from showing by accusing them of being anti-semitics, so where is the freedom of speach that they are talking about!!!!!!!!

In Denmark, where the cartoons in question were published, anti-semitism and historical revisionism (including, but not limited to holocaust denial) is perfectly legal.

So even if one accepts the implicit equivocation of editorial cartoons and historical revisionism - something I'm not prepared to grant - there is still no case for condemning the cartoons.

BTW, this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3581514.stm) is what the reference to al-Manar TV is about. The station is (AFAIK) prevented from broadcasting in and to 'only' France and Australia. I am in no position to offer qualified opinions on whether the ban is legitimate.

But I'll note that, contrary to the impression given by the phrase "the countries that stood against everyone who mocked of the holocaust are the same countries that forbade 'al-manar' tv." France and Australia constitutes a small minority of the countries where the cartoons have been published.

I will also note the discrepancy in the severity of the attack on the respective religions: The Zion hoax that was allegedly reiterated by al-Manar TV is far more elaborate and strongly worded than the Danish cartoons. Whether that consideration is relevant is, however, not for me to say.

its not Islam that is violence, read its book to know,

Theological considerations are largely irrelevant when evaluating a religion. The relevant consideration is the role of the religion in question in society and the role it has played in history. And when evaluated against that standard, Islam is no better than Christianity, and should be fought with the same vigour.

its only a few people who are using Islam to acheave thier goals,

[...]

so your problem is not with any religion itself, its with those who are in power and using thier power in the name of the religion, not only Islam but all of others...

http://img320.imageshack.us/img320/2020/truescotsman2fw.jpg)

Pic courtesy of WinAce - Late and lamented.

@ ShadowTemplar : when i said "they" i wasnt talk about you,

Ah, OK. My fault for replying to a thread without reading it all the way through first. Me bad.

i respected your beliefs,

Past tense? :D

for the facts, Iran president was attacked by Bush and other europian leaders because of his sayings.

Weeell, methinks the Iranian president was attacked because he is the Iranian president, and some of our politicos want a Short, Victorious War against Iran...

But in all seriousness, I've never ever heard anybody challenge his right to think and say those things (OK, maybe Dubya does, but Dubya doesn't give a rat's turd for civil liberties anyway...). Several have expressed their concern that a man with those views is governing a future nuclear power. But that's an altogether different story.

That would be this one (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=extremist):

Main Entry: Extremist
Part of Speech: Noun
Definition: Zealot
Synonyms: agitator, die-hard, fanatic, radical, revolutionary, revolutionist, ultra, ultraist

My emphasis.Don't see "taking blasphemy seriously" as part of that definition...

Don't see "taking blasphemy seriously" as part of that definition...

That's why you should just make one up like I did and copy the format from M-W.com to make it look official ... isn't that what propoganda is all about?

Don't see "taking blasphemy seriously" as part of that definition...

Someone who takes blasphemy seriously is, by scandinavian standards at least, a radical and revolutionary zealot.

That blasphemy is a serious matter is a radical and alien concept in Scandinavia.
People who call for blasphemy to be condemned - whether legally or politically - are calling for nothing less than a revolution in the policial climate in Scandinavia.
People who ferment revolutions over religious reasons were called zealots last time I checked.

And by any reasonable definition, a radical, revolutionary zealot is an extremist.

Uh-huh. One need not murder people directly to be an extremist.

Of course not. You look at people such as the Klu Klux Klan. Even if they do not murder black people their view of white supremacy is extremist. Kind of like the idea that Aboriginals are meant to be treated superior, but that's getting away from the point. Just because someone takes blasphemy seriously doesn't mean they're an extremist. People can get offended and angry at things such as 'goddamn', 'Jesus Christ', human cloning and attempts to play God, or sacriligious and blasphemous imagery (the cop crucified like Jesus in Silence of the Lambs, or cross shaped doorways where anyone walking through them would be crucified spring to mind). That does not make them extremists. Not many of them would fly off the handle the way extremists do. In fact, people who take blasphemy seriously would make up a sizeable chunk of the human race, where as the extremists of the lot would make up less than 1 percent.

I agree totally - taking blasphemy seriously is a part of any religion. The things that make up extremists are ideology & actions. I, along with many other Christians, was offended when that moron calling himself an artist decided that it'd be a great artistic display to immerse a cricifix in his urine, and when the other 'artist' thought it'd be neat to splatter a picture of the Virgin Mary with feces, and when Kanye West thought it'd be cool to pose as Christ on the cover of Rolling Stone...but you didn't see Christians the world over rioting in the streets, burning buildings and killing people in response to these insults.

Taking one's faith seriously doesn't make someone an extremist.

Oh God, that what? I thought the Beetles saying they were bigger than Jesus was bad. But you are right in what you say, as much of a serve as this may be to Muslims, could you tell me the last time a devout Christian, Jew or Buddist blew up a bus or a building with a bomb that was strapped to their body?

But you are right in what you say, as much of a serve as this may be to Muslims, could you tell me the last time a devout Christian, Jew or Buddist blew up a bus or a building with a bomb that was strapped to their body?

Well, there's been plenty of christians who bomb abortion clinics and gay bars... but not typically in suicide attacks.

could you tell me the last time a devout Christian, Jew blew up a bus or a building with a bomb that was strapped to their body?
About 2 days ago?

when Kanye West thought it'd be cool to pose as Christ on the cover of Rolling Stone
So he can't do it, but Jim Caveziel can? How interesting...

Well, there's been plenty of christians who bomb abortion clinics and gay bars... but not typically in suicide attacks.

Certainly Christians do not escape criticism, with some militant against homosexuals and abortions far and above the fear that the characters in Brokeback Mountain are going to leap out of the screen and rape them. Even that line of thinking is wrong, but there are Christians out there who push for genocide. That certainly is extremist. To be honest I'm not knowledgeable of Christians committing what would be considered terrorist acts such as bombing abortion clinics, but I'm sure that it would happen.

About 2 days ago?

Can you give specifics? I do not recall any suicide attacks or violence of any kind really since the Palestinion elections.

To be honest I'm not knowledgeable of Christians committing what would be considered terrorist acts such as bombing abortion clinics, but I'm sure that it would happen.

Used to happen quite a bit back in the `90's


Can you give specifics? I do not recall any suicide attacks or violence of any kind really since the Palestinion elections.
Well the news in America doesn't exactly talk about issues in the Middle East unless it involves a Palestini blowing something up.

So he can't do it, but Jim Caveziel can? How interesting...
I'm gonna assume you're being sarcastic...because the only other option is complete stupidity.

Caveziel portrayed Christ so people could see the kind of suffering Jesus went through. Kanye West posed as Christ as a publicity stunt, because he knew it would offend people, and that's how he gets his kicks.

Someone who takes blasphemy seriously is, by scandinavian standards at least, a radical and revolutionary zealot.I think we differ in what we define as "seriously".

I think we differ in what we define as "seriously".

Trulies.

There is the 'seriously' that means 'that seriously bums me out, I wish you hadn't told me my pet cricket was dead'.

And the one that means 'I'm seriously going to light your entire family on fire and watch you run screamig around the neighborhood'.'