SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

4 years ago a Danish newspaper published some satirical cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammed. This ignited violent protests which resulted in more then 100 dead, the Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran were firebombed. Many Muslim leaders including the Hamas leader at the time issued death threats. In the years that have gone by, the cartoonists have been forced into hiding for their protection.

For the full story including pictures of those cartoons, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

A few days ago, one of the cartoonists who still has to live under police protection with his granddaughter was again attacked by an axe-wielding terrorist bend on revenge. Luckily the artist locked himself in a panic room and neither him nor his granddaughter were hurt.
A spokesman for al-Shabab, Sheikh Ali Muhamud Rage, commented: "We appreciate the incident in which a Muslim Somali boy attacked the devil who abused our prophet Mohammed and we call upon all Muslims around the world to target the people like him.


What I'm interested about in this debate is freedom of expression and self-censorship.


I propose the motion that freedom of expression should be held to higher regard then the rules and regulations of any particular religion, and that the Islamic religion has a particularly bad record of perverting this.

The same Danish newspaper has also frequently published similar cartoons that criticise Christianity, Judaism and many others.
It includes things that are similar in nastiness, Catholic priests sodomizing children, Jewish rabbis eating Palestinian babies.

And yet, the Pakistani government put pressure on the Danish president to break the law on his own country and stop a privately-run free newspaper printing cartoons.

In the UK and the USA, the cartoons were pixelated in news reports. They didn't do this to spare the feelings of the Muslim population but after seeing the shocking pictures of protests in Muslims countries, they were worried about attacks on them and their staff.
Now reporters must ask themselves if this is really the kind of relationship they want to have with the Muslim community.

Politicians should fear Citizens, not the other way around and a free press is a great way of enforcing this. Censoring goes against the fundamental tenants of democracy except in extreme cases of national security.
There is a nice quote by Napoleon that exactly explains it, "I fear the newspapers more than a hundred thousand bayonets."
Satire is a legitimate method of news reporting, it is often very effective at getting to the heart of a complicated issue. Any public figure or politician must become used to occasional satire by newspapers.

Ideas should not stand or fall because one side has more guns. They support themselves with their own arguments in the relative peace of the debating hall.
In Europe we've learned this the hard way, by having two centuries of pointless wars in the middle ages with one theology against another.




I don't question the charge that many of the cartoons were distasteful, intentionally inflammatory and offensive. Nor do disagree with minorities being protected. But none of that overrides anyone's right to have produce them and any newspaper's right to publish them. And none of it, none whatsoever, justifies any act of violence.
However, Muslims may play the hurt feelings card and say the cartoons were offensive, but those of us who believe in the Enlightenment, freedom of speech and democracy are deeply offended by their reaction.

Your point?

Oh, the irony!


I agree with you in that the press must not let itself be pushed around by fear of Islamic terrorists. Instead of the companies cowering in fear and banning all Islamic satire on account of the risk to their employees, the employees of the companies must decide whether or not their job is worth the slight security risk.

I am not exactly sure what else I am supposed to say, other than the obvious "they shouldn't do that, it's bad!"…

Two words South Park

As far as I know about this whole mess, is 4-5 years ago, alot of arab/muslim nations boycotted Denmark because of those pictures. We are not allowed to draw pictures of any of the prophets.

There are quite a few people who believe that since the cartoons were offensive, they shouldn't have been published and the newspapers should have censored themselves.

If nobody around here believes that the this thread is just preaching to the choir.

the catoons sayed that the islam has a problem with violence. There are too many muslim terrorists.
By attacking danish embassies and killing people, they just proved the message of the cartoons!

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. If Islamic extremist they can get on TV and shout "Death to the West/America" and burn flags then some guy has the right to come back with some cartoons. This whole thing is dumb.

Censoring Press/speech != Freedom.

Protip: Kill more Muslims.

Honestly, they're so fucked up there's not much else you can do. Right, right, educate them. But what about the whole being taught from birth thing?

Just like how Lolicon is not allowed in a few countries. "Cartoons need to be banned!"… I agree that everyone has their own right to chose to look at what they want; if they don't like the cartoons (it being pornography, or some religious something), then they should ignore it.

From: R0b0t1
Protip: Kill more Muslims.

Honestly, they're so fucked up there's not much else you can do. Right, right, educate them. But what about the whole being taught from birth thing?

No I must protest.
Killing people because of their beliefs is totally wrong. If we did it what would happen is they would fight back and it would escalate to another pointless war over theology.

If I'm honest, I don't know what to do except defend myself and my society against all attempts to remove important things like science and democracy.

From: Harry
Just like how Lolicon is not allowed in a few countries. "Cartoons need to be banned!"… I agree that everyone has their own right to chose to look at what they want; if they don't like the cartoons (it being pornography, or some religious something), then they should ignore it.

well I suppose I agree with you. Lolicon doesn't cause any suffering. In fact I saw lolicon prohibition being used as an example by a reporter who was defending free speech.

Retaliation? Pff. Kill them faster.

As usual agreed with yakman…not much else to say but censorship of any type is wrong and shouldnt exist

From: R0b0t1
Protip: Kill more Muslims.

Honestly, they're so fucked up there's not much else you can do. Right, right, educate them. But what about the whole being taught from birth thing?

Racist.

Islam preaches and teaches to be fair and justice. All those "terrorists" are extreme radical.

How are we fucked up? You know nothing about Islam/Muslim's except from what you see on the news.

From: Bebe
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. If Islamic extremist they can get on TV and shout "Death to the West/America" and burn flags then some guy has the right to come back with some cartoons. This whole thing is dumb.

Censoring Press/speech != Freedom.

Oh no, those people who go on TV and shout Death to America are not the extreme ones. They are the ones that were opressed and had there things taken from them.

From: Yakman
No I must protest.
Killing people because of their beliefs is totally wrong. If we did it what would happen is they would fight back and it would escalate to another pointless war over theology.

If I'm honest, I don't know what to do except defend myself and my society against all attempts to remove important things like science and democracy.




well I suppose I agree with you. Lolicon doesn't cause any suffering. In fact I saw lolicon prohibition being used as an example by a reporter who was defending free speech.

Only thing I would agree with you on, as its a non-athiest point of view.

From: kingarabian
Oh no, those people who go on TV and shout Death to America are not the extreme ones. They are the ones that were opressed and had there things taken from them.

I've never seen it like that… Thank you for opening my eyes.

I don't understand why a Muslim would get upset that a non-Muslim made a picture of Muhammed. Trying to impose Islamic standards on non-believers doesn't make much sense to me. Do fundamentalist Muslims fly into a rage every time they see a Western female wearing Western clothes?

There are times when community standards are shared with one religion or another. If 90% of the people in a town are Catholic or Lutheran or Seventh Day Adventist or Mormon or whatever, chances are that the secular government will implement standards that reflect the general standards of the people they represent. That's where the line between personal belief and community morals can get blurred.

But again, I don't see how that would apply to a Danish newspaper. Perhaps if it was an Iranian newspaper or a Palestinian newspaper I could understand the anger.

People that are raised in a different religion or a different culture should be expected to be ignorant of foreign peculiarities, like not wanting to make a picture of one person or another. And even if they are aware of such concerns, that should not infringe on their rights as a non-believer to act in an ignorant way, as long as it complies with their own laws.

From: tarajunky
I don't understand why a Muslim would get upset that a non-Muslim made a picture of Muhammed. Trying to impose Islamic standards on non-believers doesn't make much sense to me. Do fundamentalist Muslims fly into a rage every time they see a Western female wearing Western clothes?

There are times when community standards are shared with one religion or another. If 90% of the people in a town are Catholic or Lutheran or Seventh Day Adventist or Mormon or whatever, chances are that the secular government will implement standards that reflect the general standards of the people they represent. That's where the line between personal belief and community morals can get blurred.

But again, I don't see how that would apply to a Danish newspaper. Perhaps if it was an Iranian newspaper or a Palestinian newspaper I could understand the anger.

People that are raised in a different religion or a different culture should be expected to be ignorant of foreign peculiarities, like not wanting to make a picture of one person or another. And even if they are aware of such concerns, that should not infringe on their rights as a non-believer to act in an ignorant way, as long as it complies with their own laws.

Fact is: The anger was not just because the danish dude drew the prophet Muhammad. It was because he had a bomb on top of his head. Were not allowed to draw or create any sculptors of ANY of the prophets. So… add the bomb and the way the west calls EVERY single muslim a terrorist…and add the radical muslims living around those parts…

From: kingarabian
Fact is: The anger was not just because the danish dude drew the prophet Muhammad. It was because he had a bomb on top of his head. Were not allowed to draw or create any sculptors of ANY of the prophets. So… add the bomb and the way the west calls EVERY single muslim a terrorist…and add the radical muslims living around those parts…

Why does that effect you, though? What if he drew that picture, didn't show anyone, and kept it in his study? Would there need to be Islamic police searching all the houses looking for offensive pictures?

What if he made the picture and e-mailed it to his wife? Or to his family? Or to his office? At what point does someone have to declare a fatwa against him?

If he published it in a Danish newspaper, why is a Somali Muslim so upset about it that he would break into the guy's house with an axe?

It seems that it was the Muslim community that made it into a big deal, not the Danish people.

If your Muslim friend or teacher is the one that shows you the picture, isn't he the one that offended you? If not for his actions, you never would have known of it. The cartoonist is just a pawn in the mind games being played by others.

From: tarajunky
Why does that effect you, though? What if he drew that picture, didn't show anyone, and kept it in his study? Would there need to be Islamic police searching all the houses looking for offensive pictures?

It affects me because its mocking my prophet or in a way calling my prophet a terrorist, pretty much it. If he kept it to himself, then that would be okay in my terms…but it got published. There is no Islamic police ;).

What if he made the picture and e-mailed it to his wife? Or to his family? Or to his office? At what point does someone have to declare a fatwa against him?
If he published it in a Danish newspaper, why is a Somali Muslim so upset about it that he would break into the guy's house with an axe?

Then no problem? This whole mess got created because of it being published.

Thats because Somali's are pretty much extreme. There is instability in Somlia. Basically the Arab nation boycotted Denmark until it removed it. The picture was racist. We already have enough trouble going on.

It seems that it was the Muslim community that made it into a big deal, not the Danish people.

Obviously? What, do you think we are going to stay quiet at something bad in OUR terms?

If your Muslim friend or teacher is the one that shows you the picture, isn't he the one that offended you? If not for his actions, you never would have known of it. The cartoonist is just a pawn in the mind games being played by others.

100% true, but it was the cartoonist that created and then got it published that got him hate.

Im not saying its right to stalk him down and to have people attacking his house. It's been 4-5 years already. Every nation has its own lunatic people…

Lets not get started with America.

From: kingarabian
Racist.

Since when is Islam a race?

Well, this just once more prove that mixing religion with politics is a bad idear.

Btw, i don't think that thiese kind of scenarios will help any muslim countries to join EU.

From: bullzeye95
Since when is Islam a race?

Racism doesnt always have to be against a race? If he says death to all muslims, then he is also saying death to there cultures etc etc etc.

So you agree with him saying all muslims should die? Please dont be as immature as him…

From: kingarabian
Every nation has its own lunatic people…

Lets not get started with America.

I was going to say USA's (NOT America's) lunatics don't attack your people with axes… Just as well, they've got guns.

A line was crossed when the war moved from Afghanistan to Iraq.

Where you're wrong, however, is when you consider muslims as a race. It is a religion before all. Atheist arabs are just like atheist blacks and atheist whites. Meanwhile, muslims, no matter their skin color or heredity, are believed by most Americans to support a number of factions and laws.

In no particular order, these would include the Ayatollah and his political shenanigans in Iran, the Sharia and all its applications over women's rights, Muhammad and his stance on female genital mutilation, Islamic terrorism the world over, etc.

Meanwhile, a lot of americans are retarded enough to support war in Iraq under the guise of war against evil and war for freedom. I'd rather say it was a war for huge profit between american weapons and oil conglomerates.

Being an atheist generally means understanding that the world is a fucked up place, and that we're all in it together.

EDIT : Death to all muslims? Nobody said that, in fact Death to all **** is very much a formula used by angry muslim crowds…

From: kingarabian
Racism doesnt always have to be against a race? If he says death to all muslims, then he is also saying death to there cultures etc etc etc.

So you agree with him saying all muslims should die? Please dont be as immature as him…

Agree.


btw this may go a bit offtopic but , the movie 2012 didn't show Mecca (Holy City of Islam) get destroyed because they knew this would reoccur and may bring danger to the producers and such.

just had to throw that in there lol.

From: kingarabian
Racism doesnt always have to be against a race?

I just looked through all of the of definitions of "racism" on www.dictionary.com and www.merriam-webster.com, as well as in both of my own personal dictionaries. All of them say that you're wrong.

From: kingarabian
So you agree with him saying all muslims should die? Please dont be as immature as him…

I didn't say anything about killing Muslims… But if still want to know, then no; I don't agree with him.

Are they any worse than the very pro-Christianity countries of the past? I mean, the Crusade was a lot more over the top compared to "small scale" rioting and the attempted attack on a Danish cartoon writer. It may not coincide with the very democratic countries, but it is very much their wishes and as a country, religion and more they are free to do as they wish to air their opinions just as much as anyone else. It was not really them at all who caused "oppression" but rather the politicians who betrayed their own beliefs out of fear.

From: kingarabian
Racist.

Islam preaches and teaches to be fair and justice. All those "terrorists" are extreme radical.

How are we fucked up? You know nothing about Islam/Muslim's except from what you see on the news.

Oh no, those people who go on TV and shout Death to America are not the extreme ones. They are the ones that were opressed and had there things taken from them.

But radical Muslims still exist. And there a quite a lot of them.

From: R0b0t1
But radical Muslims still exist. And there a quite a lot of them.

I disagree. There are 1 billion muslims in this world. Around 1-2 million radicals exist. The reason they get so much hype is because of the media.

From: kingarabian
I disagree. There are 1 billion muslims in this world. Around 1-2 million radicals exist. The reason they get so much hype is because of the media.

Then why dont you and the other non-radical muslims go and 'stop' those the radicals in an nonsuppressive method?

From: kingarabian
As far as I know about this whole mess, is 4-5 years ago, alot of arab/muslim nations boycotted Denmark because of those pictures. We are not allowed to draw pictures of any of the prophets.

Yes. Only YOU (Muslims) are. What right does the Muslim religion have to control other peoples' beliefs in a relatively non-Muslim country, especially when that country is a democracy?

From: kingarabian
Fact is: The anger was not just because the danish dude drew the prophet Muhammad. It was because he had a bomb on top of his head. Were not allowed to draw or create any sculptors of ANY of the prophets. So… add the bomb and the way the west calls EVERY single muslim a terrorist…and add the radical muslims living around those parts…

There seem to be two issues here regarding the cartoons:
1. The cartoons showed an image of a prophet
2. and they portrayed muslims as violent.


See this example:
The BBC news producers decided that they wouldn't show the images directly, instead they would show an Iman showing the images to other people. Along the way, the camera would get a far-away shot of the cartoons.

The message here is obvious, its okay for a muslim to show the images, but its not okay for a non-muslim to do that.
I don't know how those BBC producers arrived at this decision but I suspect they were under pressure from all sides and succumbed to climate of intimidation.




As for portraying muslims as violent. Don't you see the irony with this latest attack? "How dare they portray our religion as violent, we'll show them…"



What about the anti-semitic cartoons that were published weekly in the same newspaper. They show things like a Rabbi eating Palestinian babies. Or the anti-Christian cartoons which show Jesus on the cross with an erection. Why didn't the Jews and Christians go straight to violence. Only the Muslims.

There have been cases where those groups got offended, such as in Jerry Springer: The Opera. But they protested in completely peaceful means, normally in front of theatres.

From: mixster
Are they any worse than the very pro-Christianity countries of the past? I mean, the Crusade was a lot more over the top compared to "small scale" rioting and the attempted attack on a Danish cartoon writer. It may not coincide with the very democratic countries, but it is very much their wishes and as a country, religion and more they are free to do as they wish to air their opinions just as much as anyone else. It was not really them at all who caused "oppression" but rather the politicians who betrayed their own beliefs out of fear.

Please do not judge us by our parents, we are not our ancestors and do not deserve to be punished for their crimes.
And since then, we've had the Age of Enlightenment and learned about democracy, secular morals and the importance of tolerating minorities, as long as this system rules we will never again wage war because of theology. That's more then you can say for many Muslim-majority countries.



They are not free to air their opinions by burning down embassies and offering money for the murder of citizens of a different country.
Their right to wave their fist stops where my face begins.

Oh looky here, it is the politicians fault for being scared, those pesky politicians should learn to be braver. The people who started this campaign of intimidation and violence are innocent are they? I think not.



since this thread is all about cartoons, i feel like posting some

[QUOTE=Dan's The Man;672597]Yes. Only [B][U]YOU (Muslims)[/U][/B] are. What right does the Muslim religion have to control other peoples' beliefs in a relatively non-Muslim country, especially when that country is a democracy?

Obviously because its offensive? Were not telling them NOT to draw cartoons, but look at the cartoon they draw against a very important man. The prophet Mohammad was a humble and a very good person. He gained respect from the Roman's and the Jews at his time. He did not preach terrorism or to be Radical/Extreme. So how come a country that has not been bombed by any muslim (lol) nor had any trouble with any muslim/arab nation makes… a cartoon like that. Hell if its an arab dude with a burka and a gun in his hand a long ass beard no one would care. But its our prophet.

From: noidea
Then why dont you and the other non-radical muslims go and 'stop' those the radicals in an nonsuppressive method?

That is like saying "why don't you 'good' black people stop all of those thieves and murderers?" It is not their responsibility to "stop" them. People cannot choose who else is part of their religion, so why should they be punished for the actions of others whom they have never met?

EDIT:

From: kingarabian
So how come a country that has not been bombed by any muslim (lol) nor had any trouble with any muslim/arab nation makes… a cartoon like that.

It was not a country that drew the cartoon, but a private citizen.

From: bullzeye95
That is like saying "why don't you 'good' black people stop all of those thieves and murderers?" It is not their responsibility to "stop" them. People cannot choose who else is part of their religion, so why should they be punished for the actions of others whom they have never met?

EDIT:

It was not a country that drew the cartoon, but a private citizen.

I know. Somehow trying to answer dans the man.

How many Somalis with axes are out there hunting down extremist Muslim terrorists and the groups that produce them?

I would argue that extremists that terrorize the world do far more damage to Islam than a cartoon ever could. So where is the outrage from Muslims over the extremists? Where are the angry street protests against Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda? Instead, these groups are tolerated.

Part of the reason that non-Muslims such as this Danish cartoonist may want to make an image linking Muhammed to violence is to point out the apparent hypocrisy of what Muslims will not tolerate to be said about their religion while they tolerate so much violence that is done in the name of that same religion.

I would be more than happy to accept Islam as a religion of peace, and all of the nice things we hear from "mainstream" Muslims. But the fact is that the very visible acts of violence and terrorism that continue on a daily basis make all the talk seem very empty.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

I went back and looked at the attacks that occurred on my birthday over the last 8 years, and there are hundreds and hundreds of people that have been murdered in many different countries in the name of Islam on that one day alone.

These violent acts were performed by people motivated by the religion of peace? In the years since the Crusades you mentioned, mainstream Christianity has gone through a Reformation which helped to put an end to a lot of very un-Christian practices of the past. Perhaps it's time that Islam did the same, and reclaimed itself from the radicals.

From: Yakman
There seem to be two issues here regarding the cartoons:
1. The cartoons showed an image of a prophet
2. and they portrayed muslims as violent.


See this example:
The BBC news producers decided that they wouldn't show the images directly, instead they would show an Iman showing the images to other people. Along the way, the camera would get a far-away shot of the cartoons.

The message here is obvious, its okay for a muslim to show the images, but its not okay for a non-muslim to do that.
I don't know how those BBC producers arrived at this decision but I suspect they were under pressure from all sides and succumbed to climate of intimidation.

It does make sense that they would suggest it's ok for a Muslim to show the images, but not okay for non-Muslims, because it's something that I see a lot - some people take the piss out of themselves for humour, but if other people try then it can be offensive. It also makes sense because they are reporters of news and as such they shouldn't be the news, although I do agree that the main reason why in this case probably was fear.

As for portraying muslims as violent. Don't you see the irony with this latest attack? "How dare they portray our religion as violent, we'll show them…"

How dare people say foreigners should be allowed into our country, we'll show them and start a democratic movement involving the discrimination of races…

What about the anti-semitic cartoons that were published weekly in the same newspaper. They show things like a Rabbi eating Palestinian babies. Or the anti-Christian cartoons which show Jesus on the cross with an erection. Why didn't the Jews and Christians go straight to violence. Only the Muslims.

Not all societies evolve at the same rate just because we live in a globally aware world.

There have been cases where those groups got offended, such as in Jerry Springer: The Opera. But they protested in completely peaceful means, normally in front of theatres.

Please do not judge us by our parents, we are not our ancestors and do not deserve to be punished for their crimes.
And since then, we've had the Age of Enlightenment and learned about democracy, secular morals and the importance of tolerating minorities, as long as this system rules we will never again wage war because of theology. That's more then you can say for many Muslim-majority countries.

Why not judge based upon the past? I am not using it to say that this is justified, only that it isn't that bad in relation to the events of the world - there have been much bigger injustices based upon religion and the like.

After all, did this "Age of Enlightenment" happen before or after the Nazi's? Either way, you can not judge a society for having different beliefs. Maybe theology is the way forward and we, the democracies, are wrong. Just because it is widely accepted as the best system doesn't mean it is, I mean wasn't the UK much more powerful when we were led by monarchy with the parliament only as an advisor?

They are not free to air their opinions by burning down embassies and offering money for the murder of citizens of a different country.
Their right to wave their fist stops where my face begins.

Oh looky here, it is the politicians fault for being scared, those pesky politicians should learn to be braver. The people who started this campaign of intimidation and violence are innocent are they? I think not.

Is the war on terror not about standing up to those who want to harm us? Are politicians not supposed to be there to look after our interests and if those interests include free speech, then is it not up to them to defend those interests? By giving in they are sending the message that it's not that important, that it's something they will throw away because some people disagree. People complain every day about things, but very rarely does it end in removal, usually just apology if they honestly think they are at fault (and even then it's usually the author apologising).

Sure, you may disagree with violence, but rather than judge you should pity them as in your eyes they are a less socially advanced society because of it. Rather than aim to suppress their opinions, you should aim to educate them.

Regardless of what you think of those last two points, what right does any country have to do anything that influences another? The Allied forces, people often say, have no right to be in Iraq at all - surely this is much bigger than what the Muslim countries are doing since they used threats and (mainly & primarily) violence in their own country, where as we used armed forces and we forced democracy upon them. Who are we to say that they have no right to interfere with other countries?

Retard idiots out there…

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, how many comic strips / cartoons of jesus are there out there ?! Yet we don't go all around killing people because of it !

Bloody religious idiots out there, make me wanna puke.

There still really isn't an answer as to why violence was justified, sure, they drew a picture of your prophet, but they're not Islamic. There will be a point when there are no extremists, or all of Islam will be viewed as a threat and there's going to be some killing.

Nobody has the right not to be offended.
All ideas are subject to scrutiny and debate, it is a very valuable process by which we get closer to the objective truth.

Cartoons are generally very effective at this because they can get straight to the heart of a complex issue.



I think many of you are falling into the trap of "such-and-such a country has a majority Christian/whatever population, therefore Muslims must keep quiet". Democracy doesnt just mean holding an electon and the winner gets to rule. It also involves public debate of issues and toleration of minorities. Dictatorship by majority can be just as damaging, unpleasant and unproductive as any other dictatorship, or even more so. People speaking out against a consensus is very important. (As long as they're intellectually honest and fair, which creationism and similar things are not)

From: mixster
It does make sense that they would suggest it's ok for a Muslim to show the images, but not okay for non-Muslims, because it's something that I see a lot - some people take the piss out of themselves for humour, but if other people try then it can be offensive. It also makes sense because they are reporters of news and as such they shouldn't be the news, although I do agree that the main reason why in this case probably was fear.

Yes but Islam claims to be an equal religion that is for everybody. Very unlike the black jokes that only black people can say.

From: mixster

How dare people say foreigners should be allowed into our country, we'll show them and start a democratic movement involving the discrimination of races…

Red herring. Islam is not a race or nation. Its possible that a whole country converts to Islam without a single Muslim immigrating to it.

I have a big problem with people equating Muslims to people of middle-eastern origin. There are many white or black muslims.

From: mixster

Not all societies evolve at the same rate just because we live in a globally aware world.

I'm not asking all societies to evolve to a European/American level. Just that they do not become violent and indimidate our free press.

From: mixster

Why not judge based upon the past? I am not using it to say that this is justified, only that it isn't that bad in relation to the events of the world - there have been much bigger injustices based upon religion and the like.

You're white, you should be punished for the suffering of black slaves. Doesnt matter that you yourself are against slavery, its your ancestors that matter.

From: mixster

After all, did this "Age of Enlightenment" happen before or after the Nazi's? Either way, you can not judge a society for having different beliefs. Maybe theology is the way forward and we, the democracies, are wrong. Just because it is widely accepted as the best system doesn't mean it is, I mean wasn't the UK much more powerful when we were led by monarchy with the parliament only as an advisor?

Nazi Germany was not a democracy. It is true that Hitler was elected to power. But he removed all electons and became some kind of suprime leader. Public debate was banned and minorities were not tolerated. It is one of those few cases where the concept of an "exception that proves a rule" is helpful.

From: mixster

Is the war on terror not about standing up to those who want to harm us? Are politicians not supposed to be there to look after our interests and if those interests include free speech, then is it not up to them to defend those interests? By giving in they are sending the message that it's not that important, that it's something they will throw away because some people disagree.

I cant say I agree with those politicians, but they obviously thought at that point that free speech wasnt as important as physical safety. But I mostly blame the violent people who created this feeling of physical safety being at risk.

From: mixster

Sure, you may disagree with violence, but rather than judge you should pity them as in your eyes they are a less socially advanced society because of it. Rather than aim to suppress their opinions, you should aim to educate them.

Why pity, you've told me in your same post that not all societies evolve at the same rate.
I'm not judging so much as defending myself, nor am I trying to suppress their opinions. Like I've already said, Muslims are completely free to write letters to the editor, start peaceful protests or post in this thread.
They are not free to set fire to embassies or give fatwa's against citizens of another country.

However you try to phrase it, violence of this kind can never be justified.

From: mixster

Regardless of what you think of those last two points, what right does any country have to do anything that influences another? The Allied forces, people often say, have no right to be in Iraq at all - surely this is much bigger than what the Muslim countries are doing since they used threats and (mainly & primarily) violence in their own country, where as we used armed forces and we forced democracy upon them. Who are we to say that they have no right to interfere with other countries?

For the record I dont support the Iraq war.
More to the point, Denmark has no troops in Iraq, so trying to justify violience with Iraq is nonsence.

What seems to happen is that a minority of Muslims will find any excuse to be offended.

From: Yakman

I think many of you are falling into the trap of "such-and-such a country has a majority Christian/whatever population, therefore Muslims must keep quiet". Democracy doesnt just mean holding an electon and the winner gets to rule. It also involves public debate of issues and toleration of minorities. Dictatorship by majority can be just as damaging, unpleasant and unproductive as any other dictatorship, or even more so. People speaking out against a consensus is very important. (As long as they're intellectually honest and fair, which creationism and similar things are not)

Democracy, by definition, is majority rule. Public debates and toleration are nothing to do with democracy and really just coincide with democracy because they are ideals that most people in a democratic country have and so is reflected in the government.

Yes but Islam claims to be an equal religion that is for everybody. Very unlike the black jokes that only black people can say.

Perhaps it wasn't the best example for me to use since it didn't directly translate, but my point was supposed to highlight more that it comes across less offensively coming from someone who can understand the pain it causes on an equal level rather than just an empathetic or even an apathetic level like there would be if it was shown in the news.

Red herring. Islam is not a race or nation. Its possible that a whole country converts to Islam without a single Muslim immigrating to it.

I have a big problem with people equating Muslims to people of middle-eastern origin. There are many white or black muslims.

Religion is still something that can be discriminated upon on a democratic level and that was my main point, using a reference to the BNP's attitude to show how it could be a realistic aim of a democratic party. After all, it would be possible for a government to decide to tear down all the Mosque's and ban Islam practices of all kinds.

I'm not asking all societies to evolve to a European/American level. Just that they do not become violent and indimidate our free press.

Well, you are asking them to evolve then. They currently put religion before freedom of speech and expression, so they would have to evolve to reverse this order.

I think I must say that I'm, on some level, a little happy that they do have such power, because it shows not all countries are intimidated by the US and EU's power as they openly challenged one of their largest freedoms.

You're white, you should be punished for the suffering of black slaves. Doesnt matter that you yourself are against slavery, its your ancestors that matter.

My point wasn't that you should be held responsible for your ancestors, just that their actions were just as valid as yours now are, which I realise wasn't clear at all from what I said before (I probably should have gone with 'comparing to the past'). Slavery was terrible and this is nothing compared to removal of rights then and comparing the two makes me think of how small this one injustice was.

Nazi Germany was not a democracy. It is true that Hitler was elected to power. But he removed all electons and became some kind of suprime leader. Public debate was banned and minorities were not tolerated. It is one of those few cases where the concept of an "exception that proves a rule" is helpful.

He was democratically voted in and it was widely known he wanted a country run by a single man with supreme power along with his widely known views on some minorities. It was what the majority wanted and so they got it - I see nothing undemocratic about it. After all, even our democracies are really just dictatorships for several years at a time then a democracy for a few days.

I cant say I agree with those politicians, but they obviously thought at that point that free speech wasnt as important as physical safety. But I mostly blame the violent people who created this feeling of physical safety being at risk.

Those 'violent people who created this feeling of physical safety' aren't responsible for looking after your interests though. What is the point of a government if they can't look after your interests and what I assume would be the majorities interests? Sure, you could say that the majority probably thought the cartoon was just stupid and shouldn't have been published anyway, but it was published and people were oppressed because of it and because of the government.

Why pity, you've told me in your same post that not all societies evolve at the same rate.
I'm not judging so much as defending myself, nor am I trying to suppress their opinions. Like I've already said, Muslims are completely free to write letters to the editor, start peaceful protests or post in this thread.
They are not free to set fire to embassies or give fatwa's against citizens of another country.

Why pity? Is it not human nature to pity those worse off and I would say living in a less socially evolved country would make them worse off if you apply Western logic to the situation (Western logic being that the lack of freedoms are bad etc even though they may not mind and find more happiness from religion, making them an overall happier society).

Also, you are judging them - at the heart of it, regardless of how you wish to phrase it, your side of the debate is saying Muslims are bad people because they oppressed someones freedom of speech in a different country over what you viewed as just a cartoon.

How can you expect them to calmly share their opinions without educating them on how to? So if they cannot calmly express their opinions and you believe they shouldn't express it violently, it suggests you would rather they suppressed their opinions, but that's something very hard to do.

However you try to phrase it, violence of this kind can never be justified.

I'm not justifying it, just giving logic to it and defending their actions by exposing how minor this really is in the grand scheme of things as I believe this debate was just an excuse to try and propose that Islam is against freedoms.

For the record I dont support the Iraq war.
More to the point, Denmark has no troops in Iraq, so trying to justify violience with Iraq is nonsence.

I wasn't relating it directly to Denmark, more that how can you say the Muslim countries are so bad for trying to make us follow their opinion with rioting etc where as the Iraq war (although you say you don't support it) is where values were forced onto an entire country using military troops.

Saying you don't support the war does weaken the point, but it still stands that I am unsure why are you so strongly opposed to Muslim countries meddling in the affairs of a European country, yet sweep aside my example of the same happening.

What seems to happen is that a minority of Muslims will find any excuse to be offended.

I wouldn't class the original evidence as "any excuse", but I'll leave that be as your main conclusion for the debate. Just as you pointed out the other religions that were targeted, I'm sure there were people who were offended who saw that. The difference being that most of them would have been exposed to various kinds of offensive material throughout their life. In a theological country where they most likely would have been exposed to a lot less offensive material or would be used to more severe actions being taken against those that did (due to law and government being based more so around the religion). I mean, this is even evident in the laws at the moment in old Christian countries - for example, it is illegal to have multiple wives, even with their full consent and a belief in a religion that permits it, and only 'recently' were homosexual marriages permitted. Let's not get onto that though and just continue with this being an example of how even a very pro-democracy, multicultural and multi-faith society still has religion evident in its laws.

My main support for this thought is that the there weren't any riots (or at least not any large scale) that I heard of happen in the UK or other countries where by Muslims aren't a clear majority.

I know so many Muslims that have different nationalities, yet all of them are peaceful and non-violent. The way I see it, Islam teaches to be kind and precious every human life regardless of race, color and religion. As it was stated before, there is a 1 billion Muslims around the globe but people base the whole Islamic religion on those few who get the most attention and cause fear. One word, Ignorance.

Islam may be just a religion in your eyes, but in some countries, it is the way of life.

On the topic of the cartoon, its like saying "Your mother is a Bit**,"
If you say that to a large amount of people, obviously some will get offended and may get violent.

From: R0b0t1
There still really isn't an answer as to why violence was justified, sure, they drew a picture of your prophet, but they're not Islamic. There will be a point when there are no extremists, or all of Islam will be viewed as a threat and there's going to be some killing.

Nobody f***ing justifies violence. Stop acting like an idiot. Oh well, if there going to judge as all of us terrorists then be it. God will help. It also gives us the right to call ALL Americans "people with mental disorders that like to go to downtown collages and start shooting at kids".

mixster, please read up on liberal democracy before you say what you think it is. I recommend the works of Voltaire, Rousseau and Hobbes. Don't try to read their original works because they are hard, instead read modern interpretations. Like nobody tries to learn kinematics by reading Newton's original Principia.

From: gamer716
I know so many Muslims that have different nationalities, yet all of them are peaceful and non-violent. The way I see it, Islam teaches to be kind and precious every human life regardless of race, color and religion. As it was stated before, there is a 1 billion Muslims around the globe but people base the whole Islamic religion on those few who get the most attention and cause fear. One word, Ignorance.

I was told by this many years ago, so I went and did my own research. I read up about Islam, talked to Muslims about their beliefs and the critics of Islam to get both sides of the story. I read parts of the Quran and books about it.

If ignorance was the problem, the more I learned the more I would be convinced to your side. But the opposite has happened, the more I learn, the more I become convinced of the other side's position, the one that says Islam is predominantly a totalitarian vile ideology and religion, one that is out-dated, untrue, harmful and belongs to the childhood of our species.

From: gamer716

On the topic of the cartoon, its like saying "Your mother is a Bit**,"
If you say that to a large amount of people, obviously some will get offended and may get violent.

You're justifying the violence by saying that.
I suppose you'd think its okay if you critised somebody's actions and they broke into your house and attacked you with an axe?

From: mixster

Well, you are asking them to evolve then. They currently put religion before freedom of speech and expression, so they would have to evolve to reverse this order.

They might be putting religion over freedom of speech, but does that give them a right to openly violate another country's laws?

From: mixster

I think I must say that I'm, on some level, a little happy that they do have such power, because it shows not all countries are intimidated by the US and EU's power as they openly challenged one of their largest freedoms.

No it doesn't. It shows that they lack respect for another country's laws and their citizens. And it makes me respect you a lot less if you are happy that a someone tried to murder another person.

From: mixster

Slavery was terrible and this is nothing compared to removal of rights then and comparing the two makes me think of how small this one injustice was.

Apparently, what you can't understand is that murder/attemptive murder is a BIG deal! Yes, the horrid situations that slavery brought about was a HUGE injustice, but attemptive murder is also a HUGE injustice, even if it is just one person being targeted.

From: mixster

After all, even our democracies are really just dictatorships for several years at a time then a democracy for a few days.

uhh… plz explain this claim further

From: mixster

Those 'violent people who created this feeling of physical safety' aren't responsible for looking after your interests though. What is the point of a government if they can't look after your interests and what I assume would be the majorities interests? Sure, you could say that the majority probably thought the cartoon was just stupid and shouldn't have been published anyway, but it was published and people were oppressed because of it and because of the government.

So you are saying that it is the governments fault for this attemptive murder? Government is here to help. Sometimes it fails, but it is here to try to protect. If there weren't any scum that tried to murder others, this protection aspect of government would not even be needed. Its like a famous person having one body guard. One night, an assassin gets passed the body guard w/o the guard realising it. The assassin almost kills its target, but the target escapes. You are saying it is the guards fault that the assassin decided to try and kill the famous person. Do not try passing on the blame to a party that is only trying to help.

From: mixster

How can you expect them to calmly share their opinions without educating them on how to? So if they cannot calmly express their opinions and you believe they shouldn't express it violently, it suggests you would rather they suppressed their opinions, but that's something very hard to do.

So ignorance is ok? If they put their religion before everything else (well, atleast important things like our freedoms, and respect for others), and they don't know how to "calmly share their opinions," what does that say about their religion?

From: mixster

I'm not justifying it, just giving logic to it and defending their actions by exposing how minor this really is in the grand scheme of things

MINOR??? If someone tried to kill you, would you think it was a minor issue!? What if you found out that they tried to kill you for something LEGAL you did?

From: mixster

I think I must say that I'm, on some level, a little happy that they do have such power

…

I believe this debate was just an excuse to try and propose that Islam is against freedoms.

A Muslim tries to murder another human because of freedoms. A Muslim leader supports the other Muslim. You are happy that the situation occured. This thread did not convince me that Islam is against freedoms, you did.

From: mixster

Saying you don't support the war does weaken the point, but it still stands that I am unsure why are you so strongly opposed to Muslim countries meddling in the affairs of a European country, yet sweep aside my example of the same happening.

That whole war started because of 9/11. Whose to blame for that? Terrorists, that happened to be Muslim. Did the cartoons fly a plane into world renoun structures killing many people? No, so do not compair the two because they are totally different. One was a defensive reaction and the other was an offensive reaction.

(Insert joke about internet arguments and ending up retarded here.)

I think that first, everyone has to agree who is being violent and suppressing freedom of speech - that is, extremists. Here is a simplified explaination of what exactly is an extremist.

The average joe has a system of values that go like this :

First, your children.
Then, your well-being.
Then, the rest of your family and near-family (friends of long date…).
Then, your monetary possessions.
Then, the will not to resort to violence.
Then, the well being of others.

It is an extreme simplification and doesn't include environmental factors, but strictly social relations. If it's higher, it will take over what's under. It means that the average Joe Blow wouldn't fight for a stranger on the streets - but he certainly would if he/she was his son or daughter.

You got to put God or Allah or your personal on the ladder somewhere. The regular extremist is the guy that puts God above his family and possibly his personal well-being.

This excludes the terrorist masterminds and other leaders. Those who are behind the senseless violence and terrorism in the middle-east, I think these guys are just sociopaths and psychopaths, really.

From: xelfarcherdv
They might be putting religion over freedom of speech, but does that give them a right to openly violate another country's laws?

They aren't violating another country's laws at all - the Muslim countries as a whole were putting pressure and rioting in their own countries, which isn't breaking Danish laws to my knowledge

No it doesn't. It shows that they lack respect for another country's laws and their citizens. And it makes me respect you a lot less if you are happy that a someone tried to murder another person.

See above - not breaking laws. I didn't say I was happy about the murder - I specifically said I was happy that they would express such outrage against one of the Western civilisations most basic freedoms, showing that the world isn't run by fear.

Apparently, what you can't understand is that murder/attemptive murder is a BIG deal! Yes, the horrid situations that slavery brought about was a HUGE injustice, but attemptive murder is also a HUGE injustice, even if it is just one person being targeted.

One murder isn't big. The US murders a lot of people who are under criminal charges. Not to mention that this topic is primarily about the Muslim countries trying to prevent freedom of speech rather than the murder itself. Even including the murder, if you say that one attempted murder is anything at all close to slavery where countless black people died being transported, being worked for their lives and killed when they tried to escape and the like, then you have you a very messed up moral compass.

uhh… plz explain this claim further

Every few years you get to vote for who leads, but in between they make all the decisions. Someone famous said it somewhere.

So you are saying that it is the governments fault for this attemptive murder? Government is here to help. Sometimes it fails, but it is here to try to protect. If there weren't any scum that tried to murder others, this protection aspect of government would not even be needed. Its like a famous person having one body guard. One night, an assassin gets passed the body guard w/o the guard realising it. The assassin almost kills its target, but the target escapes. You are saying it is the guards fault that the assassin decided to try and kill the famous person. Do not try passing on the blame to a party that is only trying to help.

I never said it was their fault for the attempted murder, but for the oppression of the cartoonists freedom of speech. You seriously need to stop assuming all my points are regarding the murder.

So ignorance is ok? If they put their religion before everything else (well, atleast important things like our freedoms, and respect for others), and they don't know how to "calmly share their opinions," what does that say about their religion?

It says nothing about their religion, it says about their society. Stop discriminating regarding religion - I even later acknowledged that I didn't know of any Muslims in western countries who violently protested. I also didn't say whether or not it was wrong or right - my morality doesn't cover other people and I'm not prepared to judge a large amount of people I don't know. As far as I'm concerned, they can put religion before whatever they want because it's their choice, not mine.

MINOR??? If someone tried to kill you, would you think it was a minor issue!? What if you found out that they tried to kill you for something LEGAL you did?

I don't think the thing that would most annoy me was that it was for something legal, more so that I was attempted to be killed. Either way, I'm no so self centered that I would think it was a great injustice if it happened. There are much worse things happening every second in the world compared to my near death.

A Muslim tries to murder another human because of freedoms. A Muslim leader supports the other Muslim. You are happy that the situation occured. This thread did not convince me that Islam is against freedoms, you did.

I'm (a little) happy that the Muslim leader expressed a contradicting view so strongly against a Western civilisations key belief. Not at one point did I say that I was happy nearly get killed. You are making pretty stupid assumptions now and it's somewhat annoying. I also don't think you get the point of debates if I convinced you of something I wasn't arguing for.

That whole war started because of 9/11. Whose to blame for that? Terrorists, that happened to be Muslim. Did the cartoons fly a plane into world renoun structures killing many people? No, so do not compair the two because they are totally different. One was a defensive reaction and the other was an offensive reaction.

I'm sorry to shock you, but not that many people died. More people die every year from committing suicide or homicides. I would also say that many people are skeptical about the authenticity of 9/11 and it's Muslim extremist origin. On top of that, that they were Muslim had nothing to do with it - it was that they believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and/or that the supposed Muslim extremist groups had roots in Iraq. I also see why it's defensive in regards to 9/11 when it was highly unlikely that the attack from from Iraq under Iraqi orders or the like as I've never heard anything to suggest that.

From: mixster
I also see why it's defensive in regards to 9/11 when it was highly unlikely that the attack from from Iraq under Iraqi orders or the like as I've never heard anything to suggest that.

Lol

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

From: Harry

Thats not racist.

…

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/newspaper-reprints-kurt-westergaard-muslim-cartoons/story-e6frfku0-1225817536377

o_O

From: ruler
Borders, Language, Culture

http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/

This site hurts my eyes with the whining and creeping patriotism.

EDIT : HAHA THIS ^^