UTMC

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php? ... odyad=true
These are the images that created much uproar and anger, and are purportedly offensive to fanatical muslims across the world. I found them reading a Christopher Hitchens article( http://www.slate.com/id/2225504 ), and I figured if anyone else has something that people find offensive but they themselves found simply interesting, or a case of censorship that they disagreed with, maybe they could post it. I am bewildered mostly at how benign the images are really, and how in the world it can make sense to someone to kill people over it..Have at it, I suppose.

This infuriates me beyond belief.

Its that the Muslim religion regards iconography as idolatry. Thats why there are no statues, paintings things like that in mosques or muslim homes.
Its also why Muslims have a difficult time with western religions where all you see are images of a bloody guy hanging on a cross and various saints and lesser dieties.

So when the cartoonists whipped up an image of their prophet, they understandably got mad. They see it as an intentional affront to their religious practices and beliefs. Kind of like what would happen if they made peanut butter sandwiches with the Eucharist.

I'll also chime in here, just to say that Muslim people had every right to be offended. Their belief system doesn't allow for depictions of Muhammad, in any form. So, the sheer fact that someone drew him and published it is offense enough. Compound that by making them Politcal Satire, and basicly making fun out of him... Well, I can see why some are royaly pissed... Is this something to start a war over? Probably not... BUT Christians have a long history of starting shit over 'small things' too. Keep in mind; These people are living in a different world than us. They cut off hands for petty thievery...

At any rate, the cartoons are fairly offensive, in the respect that they are caricatures of a major religious figure. People in the US would absolutley lose thier shit if cartoons of Jesus were to depict anything similar...

Just a conflicting viewpoint.

Oh, and I like Cheeze Wiz with my JesusSnax....

Piss Jesus anyone?

What I wonder is.

Why do you have to respect some ones religion?
What sets it apart from their political views,which can be attacked with no deference. What about religion puts it up on that pedestal.
I think nothing.

It's about being nice. Be nice, everybody plays along together and nobody's feelings get hurt.
There is some truth to everything you need to know you learn in kindergarten.

leftlaneguy wrote:At any rate, the cartoons are fairly offensive, in the respect that they are caricatures of a major religious figure. People in the US would absolutley lose thier shit if cartoons of Jesus were to depict anything similar...

Comedy Central does it with South Park...

<a href="http://s443.photobucket.com/albums/qq16 ... hammad.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq16 ... hammad.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

TV200 wrote:What I wonder is.

Why do you have to respect some ones religion?
What sets it apart from their political views,which can be attacked with no deference. What about religion puts it up on that pedestal.
I think nothing.

Nothing is right. They go hand in hand, and it's a dangerous and volatile mix. Sadly, as much as we try to be nice to each other, it only takes one person to get offended by your freedom of expression and the shitstorm spreads like a wildfire. One of the singers / songwriters from the ol' country said, roughly translated "first came the priests then the cannons, followed by the thiefs." Anyways, I gotta go, I think there's cthulhu in my waffle.

Sisyphus wrote:It's about being nice. Be nice, everybody plays along together and nobody's feelings get hurt.
There is some truth to everything you need to know you learn in kindergarten.

That I understand. It just seems as though religion has an "entitlement" to respect above and beyond anything else.
Which is what I don't understand. I personally am not going to go out of my way to offend anyone's religiosity, but also I'm not going to treat it any differently than any other random opinion they have.

TV200 wrote:

Sisyphus wrote:It's about being nice. Be nice, everybody plays along together and nobody's feelings get hurt.
There is some truth to everything you need to know you learn in kindergarten.

That I understand. It just seems as though religion has an "entitlement" to respect above and beyond anything else.
Which is what I don't understand. I personally am not going to go out of my way to offend anyone's religiosity, but also I'm not going to treat it any differently than any other random opinion they have.

Just as i am cautious around those who adhere strictly to "man's laws", i'm doubly weary of those who cling to "god's law". Such a staunch stance based on mythology that (imho) hasn't been proven to exist is reason for alarm in my book.

The irrationality of, in this example, the fundamentalist Muslim leadership is self evident. Some dutch people draw offensive cartoons, inturn, their lives are threatened. This causes a huge media story and, of course the cartoons are reprinted inumerable times.

If, instead, the offended followers of Islam would of said "Man, those dutch guy's are goin to hell and they don't even know it, poor fools! Lets go smoke a hookah, enjoy some chai, and then pray for their damned souls." maybe others would be able to take their opinions and way of life more seriously.

Bill Maher is right: Religion is a mental illness.

TV200 wrote:

Sisyphus wrote:It's about being nice. Be nice, everybody plays along together and nobody's feelings get hurt.
There is some truth to everything you need to know you learn in kindergarten.

That I understand. It just seems as though religion has an "entitlement" to respect above and beyond anything else.
Which is what I don't understand. I personally am not going to go out of my way to offend anyone's religiosity, but also I'm not going to treat it any differently than any other random opinion they have.

Zealots create lemmings? Free thinking is scary to many. It may be hard to reconcile the idea of "agreeing to disagree" peacefully. It takes mental energy and intelligence to create compromise and manage detente. Modern Society takes the lemming road... Make rules about everything. Then you eliminate that hard job of "thinking". In the end, it becomes a vicious circle. By trying to create a more inclusive society, a more rigid, confusing one is created.

Intelligent freedom of thought and expression, coupled with a strong sense of personal responsibility can work, but it takes effort and intelligence. Sadly, these commodities appear on the brink of extinction.

Sisyphus wrote:It's about being nice. Be nice, everybody plays along together and nobody's feelings get hurt.

Fuck being nice! Someone drawing a cartoon of your imaginary friend doesn't give you an excuse to burn an embassy.

/RM

What I found interesting were the comments.

Which were mainly from Muslims citing how Muhammad suffered all these indignities, and then forgave the people who caused them and prayed for those people....and how Muhammad was likely praying for those poor, blighted souls of cartoonists even now.

Well, if Muhammad suffered all those indignities and, like the pacifist, peaceful man he was, turned the other cheek and prayed for the people......why did an embassy get blown up over this?

If Allah is All Forgiving, why are people's lives being threatened?

For myself, I am seeing this as the fact that ALL extremists, Fundies, Muslims, environmentalists, capitalists, socialists, whatever, are damnably dangerous, no matter WHAT they are extreme about.

Oh, and Ghastly has been making fun of Jesus for some time, and hasn't been threatened with death yet. Even after the "Jesus as hard-core BDSMer" cartoon.

enphasis on extremists, not muslim, and I seem to remember that some doctor got shot by christians for practicing abortions.

not an excuse in anyway, but I agree that it's blind radical faith that is dangerous, not the color of blind faith you chose.

except of course if it's blind faith in two wheel personnal velocity.

The difference with say, South Park, and Ghastly, is they're not being distributed by news media outlets worldwide South park also does not depict Jesus carrying a bomb, or wearing a vest of dynamite...

These people are all Nucking Futs, but they are still people, and as such, deserve some sort of consideration. Even if we don't agree. Otherwise, we'll end up in the Crusades again. Or the Halocaust. That's where this kind of zealotry always ends up.

Just sayin'...

From Hustler v. Falwell (The Campari lampoon depicting Fallwell's "first time" in an outhouse with his mom because the goat wasn't in the mood):

"Despite their sometimes caustic nature, from the early cartoon portraying George Washington as an ass down to the present day, graphic depictions and satirical cartoons have played a prominent role in public and political debate. Nast's castigation of the Tweed Ring, Walt McDougall's characterization of presidential candidate James G. Blaine's banquet with the millionaires at Delmonico's as "The Royal Feast of Belshazzar," and numerous other efforts have undoubtedly had an effect on the course and outcome of contemporaneous debate. Lincoln's tall, gangling posture, Teddy Roosevelt's glasses and teeth, and Franklin D. Roosevelt's jutting jaw and cigarette holder have been memorialized by political cartoons with an effect that could not have been obtained by the photographer or the portrait artist. From the viewpoint of history it is clear that our political discourse would have been considerably poorer without them.

Respondent contends, however, that the caricature in question here was so "outrageous" as to distinguish it from more traditional political cartoons. There is no doubt that the caricature of respondent and his mother published in Hustler is at best a distant cousin of the political cartoons described above, and a rather poor relation at that. If it were possible by laying down a principled standard to separate the one from the other, public discourse would probably suffer little or no harm. But we doubt that there is any such standard, and we are quite sure that the pejorative description "outrageous" does not supply one. "Outrageousness" in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression. An "outrageousness" standard thus runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience."

Sure, this lil snippet of jurisprudence is from an American perspective based upon American standards of justice.

That said, I sure find it comforting sometimes that I live in a country that knows it has to have a thick skin due to the freedom to criticize. It's a benefit that outweighs the cost.

So the Muslims are upset, but they utilize their own freedom of speech to voice what they are upset about.

Hey, I'm not a big fan of turning on Al Jazeera and seeing the US Flag burning or the depictions of our president hanging in effigy. And yes, I bitch about it. But I don't start threating to kill them for their poorly conceived slight.

It's ironic that groups with no tolerance (KKK to Farrahkan and Fundamental religious fanatics of all faiths) exploit the freedoms of a society to espouse their intolerance of others - a freedom they, themselves, would not bestow on others. In poor taste? Definitely. Something to cry about, not really.

Caliann wrote:For myself, I am seeing this as the fact that ALL extremists, Fundies, Muslims, environmentalists, capitalists, socialists, whatever, are damnably dangerous, no matter WHAT they are extreme about.

People are damnably dangerous, and extremism can certainly be a problem. Religion on the other hand is far far worse.

If you're an extremist environmentalist, you might chain yourself to a bulldozer or sabotage a whaling ship, but you likely came to that conclusion through some degree of intellectualism and examination of fact. With religion, you might bomb an abortion clinic, but it'll be because you think it's what your imaginary friend would want.

/RM

goose wrote:In poor taste? Definitely. Something to cry about, not really.

The biggest crime the cartoonist committed was not being particularly funny

Maybe it's a Dane thing

/RM

roadmissile wrote:
People are damnably dangerous, and extremism can certainly be a problem. Religion on the other hand is far far worse.

/RM

I beg to disagree.

Animal rights extremists like to blow up things like slaughter houses....during the work day.

Environmental extremist like to blow up things like coal plants and dams.

It occurs to me that no form of extremist is inherently more dangerous than the other...they ALL like to blow things up...they just blow *different* things up.

Religious extremists simply do it for God....but that does not make them more nut-casey than the ones who do it because cows are people too.

RevCBL wrote:Plenty (most?) of the greatest philosophers have been religious, and used that as a springboard for intellectual exploration, without blowing shit up.

I'm going to go ahead and shout FALSE! to that one, although given that religion has been a dominant force in culture you could probably debate the point. Certainly at least a few philosophers were religious in name only, but most of the very best of the best are agnostics to varying degrees. Unsurprising when you consider that those religious folks not using religion as a springboard to enlightenment were tracking down the non religious and putting them to death. Here's a point though: doesn't it seem like there are far less religious philosophers than in past centuries?

Now I need to clarify my earlier point. I don't think one form of extremism is inherently better than another, religious or not. What I do believe is that religion breeds extremists with vastly greater frequency.

/RM

St. Thomas Aquinas; Descartes; Francis Bacon; Spinoza; Locke; Voltaire; Hume; Kant; and Hegel to name a few, were all very religious. In fact, for Aquinas, it was his deep desire to understand why God created this world that led to much of his work.

Sure, there are many others that either were not religious or abandoned religion, but that doesn't undermine the fact that religion has always played a role in philosophy.

Guess who I just drew frowning. (I'll keep it a secret, because I don't want blood on my hands).

goose wrote:to name a few, were all very religious.

but that doesn't undermine the fact that religion has always played a role in philosophy.

Aquinas was certainly religious, no debate there.

Descartes claimed to be a devout catholic but it was and is still argued that he was a secret deist or atheist.

Bacon was religious but wrote that (I'm paraphrasing a bit here) "the more unbelievable the divine mystery is, the more honor is shown to God in believing it".

Baruch Spinoza was a Jew that had the rare honor of actually receiving the Jewish equivalent of excommunication (cherem), and at the time of his death was considered a heathen anti-religionist.

John Locke seemed significantly more concerned with the secular world than anything spiritual, but does appear to have been either a deist or christian, depending primarily on who you ask.

Voltaire, like many of our founding fathers professed himself a deist.

David Hume was rumored to be an atheist in a time when to say it outright would have meant the hangman's noose. He wrote of contemporary religious principals that "You will scarcely be persuaded, that they are anything but sick men’s dreams” although the modern school of thought is that he was mainly skeptical about both religion and the hardcore atheistic views of the time.

Immanuel Kant's writings were seized on by several British Catholics for their potential use in restoring the philosophical legitimacy of a belief in God. Despite this, due to some of his criticisms of religion modern scholars tend to see Kant as thoroughly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular.

Hegel sarcastically stated that taking matters on faith "is far easier than cultivating the habit of thinking for ourselves." Despite his theological bent his work is seen as an important precursor to many modern secular schools of thought.

Your listing those specific men and what I've written above I think illustrates my point fairly well. Does religion pervade every level of society and culture and has it for centuries, sure, I wouldn't argue against that. Would I deny that religion has nearly always played some role in philosophy? Certainly not, you're either arguing for it, against it, or pissing it off by ignoring it. Can religious people produce amazing and inspirational works? Absolutely, not only philosophy but architecture and devotional music spring to mind. Does it change my belief that religion in general is dangerous and that the vast majority of extremists, the kind of extremists that strap bombs to themselves and shoot abortion doctors, come from religious backgrounds? No it does not.

/RM

There should not ever be a right not to be offended.



I fight for the right to offend. It's embodied in the First Amendment, and in the most fundamental of humanitarian law -- the right to speak and express oneself freely. Take away that right or restrict it, and that's the first step to totalitarianism, fascism, theocracy, slavery.

I thought we were supposed to offend them, because they don't love bacon!

[quote="guitargeek"]Bill Maher is right: Religion is a mental illness.[/quote

A-Fucking-Men to that.]

tucko wrote:

guitargeek wrote:Bill Maher is right: Religion is a mental illness.

A-Fucking-Men to that.

Very much indeed so. Having an invisible friend, even if one is convinced, absolutely and beyond doubt, that said friend will spend eternity having you tortured most gruesomely, is no reason for special privileges. Except those privileges involving multi-colored pills and regular meetings with highly trained mental-health specialists.

DerGolgo wrote:

tucko wrote:

guitargeek wrote:Bill Maher is right: Religion is a mental illness.

A-Fucking-Men to that.

Very much indeed so. Having an invisible friend, even if one is convinced, absolutely and beyond doubt, that said friend will spend eternity having you tortured most gruesomely, is no reason for special privileges. Except those privileges involving multi-colored pills and regular meetings with highly trained mental-health specialists.

So what you're saying is this very well could be a conspiracy cooked up by the international mental health association to drum up more business