Danish cartoons and freedom

As if these things are comparable!

No one would be outraged by such cartoons for religious reasons but purely out of respect for six million dead Jews and their surviving family members. That is a different matter altogether, also because Islam is a religion based on hearsay whereas the Holocaust is a sad fact of history.

 

To you and me yes.
However true followers of a religion also consider their holy books and teachings facts. :-?

 

Stix,I definately agree with option 1.It seems any excuse will do for them to unite in a jihad.How many holy wars can one reasonably have?Some Muslim nations are living in the stone age as far as technology is concerned,yet there is no shortge of modern weapons.I really get tired of hearing about how everything is 'evil' to them.Singing,dancing,music in general to name a few.However,slaughtering (insert number here) of your own people in the process of killing a handful of westerners is perfectly acceptable.The term savages easily applies to many of them.

 

That stuff really only applies to fundamentalist Muslims. Jihad is one of the duties of being a good Muslim and it does not necessarily involve warfare, just the spreading of the faith.

 

Of course they do. But that is no excuse for not questioning, or even mocking their religion.

The mocking of authorities is the foundation of the freedom we enjoy today. Where would we have been if our forefathers didn't mock religion?

 

From what I understand,a jihad is supposed to be some kind of personal undertaking or goal.However,as is typical with the extemists, they use whatever interpretation is most convenient at the time.

 

I enntirely agree that the whole issue is being whipped up by some Muslim authorities for their own purposes, and that it represents a gross over-reaction. I hope that the people carrying posters with death-threats on the protest march here in the UK are caught and punished. There is also no doubt that the paper had the right to publish the cartoons.

But with rights come responsibilities. Whether or not Mohammed has been depicted elsewhere, it is clear that the custom within Islam for centuries has been not to show him. You cannot draw comparisons with illustrations of Jesus, because there is no comparable custom.

The reaction of Muslim authorities in the UK has been to condemn the protests as unwarranted, but also to express regret that the cartoons were shown, because most Muslims do find them offensive in principle (whatever they show in practice). The cartoons were published deliberately to make a point, and the editor must have known that this would cause offence. I am not blaming the paper for the trouble which is occurring - responsibility for that lies with the people who are rioting (and those who are encouraging them) but IMO it would have been better to leave them unpublished.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

Hmmm... I actually wrote something in a similar vein on another forum. If you and I are thinking alike, one of us is in trouble!

I think the key is in the first sentence. As I understand it, that is a smaller paper, not something read in every corner of Denmark.

When the cartoons were originally published, there were some irritated people, but it was all local. Then 3-4 months later, some idiot carries the cartoons back to the Middle East, and starts showing them all around, inciting people.

So, now who is responsible for the problems? The idiot that first published them, or the idiot that made sure that the bulk of the Muslim world had them shoved in their faces????

In closing, I agree that those cartoons might have been in poor taste, but last I checked, freedom of speech allowed poor tastes.

 

An imam working in Denmark has been travelling around the Middle East showing locals a picture of a man dressed up as a pig, telling them that it was a Western picture of Mohammed. The picture in question was taken at a French food festival or something and had nothing to do with Islam or any critisism of it at all. I think that speaks volumes about who's to blame, as I suspect he wasn't alone in doing it.

 

I don't agree with a lot of what this author has to say but it should be noted that even though he is venting his frustrations on the Europeans as well as the Islamists not even he attempts to justify the threats and intimidation nor does he state that the Danish paper should be censored.
The issue is not whether one agrees with the content of the cartoons.
You don't have to agree in order to recognize that it is an issue of free speech. Repugnant speech deserves protection as much as safe speech.
In fact safe speech needs no protection; nobody is offended or disagrees with it. I disagree with the protestors that burn the US flag but I would not want them prevented from doing so.

 

I'm sick of hearing about responsible freedom of speech , it's my right to
be as obnoxious as I wish to anybody about anything , if some people
feelings are hurt , bad luck. anything from Africa and the middle east is
a puke fest , Id like to talk openly about what exactly happened in the
concentration camps , I had an great uncle there ! if the U.S can be
dragged in the mud ( for their sins , which are many ) so can everyone
else . third world countries are such basket cases , not giving them ANY
help might actually be an improvment .
the polution is not the problem ,7 billions people are!
most greenies are pampered technological morons living in inner cities
feminism is an excuse for middle class women to get jobs not on their merits .
all frenchmen are pretentious .
all english are double crosser
............
......
..
.


jeaguer

 

jeaguer

I've been going through my German dictionary for some time to find a translation for 'jeaguer', I think I now know what it means.

 

Jeaguer, there are indeed limits to your freedom of speech and those limits are set by respect for other people, their nationalities, religion, beliefs and anything else they stand for. If you do not accept this you cannot function on an international forum, and I will have to ban you.

This is your only warning. Improve your behaviour or you will be banned.

Forum Admin

 

point well taken Roel ,and meditate on mine too , being free is not the
same as being sensible , quite a lot of good people have suferred
horribly for some of those rights and are still being hunted by all the
world goons .meanwhile all the world sensible people discuss about
what is acceptable ,being angry is not being sensible .being free is not
about having community standard imposed , there is a contradiction here
wich is exactly my point ,there is no certification process for having
freedom .

jeaguer ....

P.S jeaguer is a private rugby joke , go N.S.W.

 

That is no excuse to insult vast groups of people. Some aspects of political correctness and social norms are indeed ridiculous, some are just common sense.

Please check out our topic on political correctness, too.
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2601
Holy crap, that one's been dead for a long time!

 

support freedom, buy danish products!!

beer
dairy
coffee tables

anything else you can find

 

cartoon

" Preserve Wild Life" pickle a Kangaroo.

 

Mocking religion, Skua? Or mocking those who misuse and abuse religion to do and get what they want, usually in direct (and often gross) violation of the tenets of the very religion that they profess to follow? There is a great deal of difference between the two.

 

In this case, the religion itself is mocked, in the form of its inventor ("prophet" if you will). It can be argued that Mohammed himself indeed abused the religion he invented for his own benefit, but that is a completely different matter and I don't think that's what you were suggesting.

 

Absoltely. Both should be mocked, but for different reasons.

Religion is an authority. And if we are no longer are allowed to mock religion it becomes an absolute authority. And we don't want that, do we?