Offensive cartoons in Denmark

[Gelgoog Pilot]

Yeah who cares about boycotting the Danish? I mean what do they make anyways?

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]Okay, I think we all agree that rioting, and embassy burnnign is not the appropriate thing to do on the muslim's part. And we all agree the cartoons are racists, offensive, and simply not good taste.

I think we should talk about now, wether people should have the right to publish these kinds of cartoons. Many of you have argued for complete free speech. Do you honestly think that free speech means people can spread lies?

Those cartoonists, and their newspaper, are a bunch of cowards --spreading lies, and offending muslims under the guise of freedom of speech. When one insults Muhammad, it's a big, big, deal, because not only do muslims love and respect their prophet, they take him as the example of good conduct and behaviour. If one insults, Muhammad, he insults all muslims.

When people read these cartoons, some of them actuallty believe them, and eventually, people will hate muslims, they will see them as dangerous, and eventually, people will want to exterminate muslims.

The holocaust started out with racist cartoons published in newspapers like these. They spread lies, and caused people to hate Jews, and many people in germany had no problem with jes being exterminated, simply because they believed the lies they were told.

So think about it. Do you support ignorance and racism, and those who spread them under the guise of "free speech"?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

No, I think we should take away free speech. We should remove it from our social institutions to protect the offended. Some of those books on witchcraft, like the Harry potter series should totally be banned, they have no merit. I mean, the people in the southern states must have been horribly offended when their black ?neighbors? began demanding some sort of equality? how dare they speak up. How about the Jews? Man, they almost spoke out against the Nazis before the government there took [i]necessary[/i] and [i]appropriate[/i] measures to keeping their ?free speech? under wraps. Look at Socrates, he was such a terrible person, spreading lies about the Greek gods, corrupting Athens? youth. He was put to death far later than he should have been. And who was that Jesus guy? What was his problem claiming to be the ?Son of God?? In an ideal world, crap like that would be caught by the thought-police.

I?ve tried to ignore this thread like the plague, really. This is about to circulate in on itself again. Men and women in the western world recognize certain unalienable rights, and have died for those rights. Our nation was born out of an oppression of free speech in England, a country that burned it?s residents alive for professing a different [i]denomination[/i] of the same damn religion. Freedom of speech is a virtue that I justify from a philosophical, rational, and religious perspective. I think the way to solving our problems isn?t by ?quieting? the minority voices. Through understanding and discourse, a common ground can almost always be found; I have that much faith in humanity.

People have a right to protest whatever they believe. I have just as much a right to disagree and argue, if I choose. This sort of environment not only enlightens ourselves as a whole, but society has a beautiful tendency for evolving to accommodate the most rational and humane ideas. We are living in a world where we aren?t under a constant threat of tyranny on the same magnitude we?ve experienced? not like the middle ages, renaissance, industrial revolution, or 40?s.

I want to know [i]why[/i] this Dutch newspaper printed these pictures. I would like to understand what made people so angry about Islam that they would want to print something slanderous. Chances are, there?s a cause and effect lurking behind the scenes. I can empathize with why they might have printed these articles. The militant Islamic radicals in the middle east stormed buildings of innocent people armed to the teeth. The ?terrorists? the U.S. military is fighting are firing from the houses of innocent families, drawing dangerous gunfire to innocent civilians. During the first Gulf War, Sadaam took a well known weapon?s manufacturing plant, removed the weapons, and filled the building with [i]children[/i]. The U.S. un aware of this action, bombed the target, killing some 20 children and injuring more. The Muslims fighting against us have no respect for innocent life, choosing to execute their hostages (American soldiers sexually abused theirs in one case, in fairness). They are a people who celebrated in the street as the WTC buildings toppled to the ground, who burn American flags, and bomb civilians in the streets of Israel (a sovereign land recognized by the UN and one that gives the right to vote and serve in parliament to its Palestinian inhabitants). They believe that people should be ?held to the sword?, if they convert they are to live, if they don?t they are to be killed. Yet the Quran also states that there should be ?no compulsion in religion?. Intriguing that the militants ignore the latter. Christians had the brutal crusades, a terrible time in history where they were [i]anything[/i] but Christ-like. Militant Muslims have the Jihad. I say ?have? because the religion has spread through North African villages by gun barrel and forced coercion into the fold of Islam. In those nations, people have no freedom to live by any other method of thought or religion.

I can understand why some people have a problem with certain groups of Muslims. People have a problem with my religion; Christianity. Some people are sick of being told they will ?go to hell?. Some people are dead tired that so called ?Christians? can hold themselves in lofty moral positions; utterly disregarding the ?judge not lest ye be judged? and ?he who is without sin throw the first stone? principles of the Bible. I understand how much it pisses me off when I hear stories like this, stories of Christians who act as a stumbling block to others. And even though it pains me to say it, I respect everyone?s right to choose to [i]hate[/i] and slander against my religion as a result of this pent up anger. If I?ve seen one thing, I?ve seen the power of open dialogue to diffuse even [i]their[/i] disdain.

[Raiyuu]

[color=Red][font=Trebuchet MS]I'd like to remind Your Mother that excessive swearing is considered spam. Take a deep breath and express your opinions in a civil manner, please.
[color=Black][quote name='Chabichou][/color][/font][/color][color=#004a6f]Do you honestly think that free speech means people can spread lies?[/color][color=Red][font=Trebuchet MS'][color=Black][/quote] Yes. Free speech means exactly that - freedom to say what you like. I'm not saying lies are a good thing, especially when used to harm the image of a social grouping, but the fact is you're being reactionary. You condemn the burning down of Danish embassies in reaction to this cartoon; arson, because of a cartoon? Ludicrous! But what you're proposing is almost worse - taking away one of the basic Human Rights, because of a cartoon? That's ludicrous too.
[quote name='Chabichou][/color][/font][/color][color=#004a6f] The holocaust started out with racist cartoons published in newspapers like these. They spread lies, and caused people to hate Jews, and many people in germany had no problem with jes being exterminated, simply because they believed the lies they were told.[/color][color=Red][font=Trebuchet MS'][color=Black][/quote] I'd like to refer you once again to [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law"][b][u]Godwin's Law[/u][/b][/url].

I'm not sure whether this was in Denmark, the US or Britain, but apparently there have been marches by Muslims in reaction to these cartoons, which the police are having to investigate through CCTV footage. Why? Because there were people holding placards calling for those who oppose Islam to be killed. [b]Killed. [/b]Ithink we have on our hands another classic case of a few fruitloops spoiling it for the majority.
[/color][/font][/color]

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Drix D'Zanth']No, I think we should take away free speech. We should remove it from our social institutions to protect the offended.[/quote]Drix, I am in no way against free speech, but those cartoons are not "free speech". They are simply racist, hateful derogatory remarks made about an entire population of people of comprising of 1.2 billion people.

Free speech is supposed to serve the purpose of our societies progressing, not regressing. Of course the jews should have spoken out against hitler! That's what real free speech is about. But if you look back to my example, in germany, racist cartoons were being printed about jews, and look at the tragety that resulted from the propogation of racism and lies. Why should these types of racist and untruthful images be tolerated? Why should we tolerate lies?

Drix, I am not only standing up for muslims here. I don't think any offensive and or images should be printed about any religious or ethnic group.

And drix, I understand how people can be angry with certain Islamic radicals. It's not right to bomb buildings filled with innocent civilians. But people need to understand that these radicals do not make up the majority of muslims. And they certainly aren't following Muhammad's teachings.

More cartoons have popped up over the internet, much worse than those in the newspapers. One showing Muhammad raping one of his wives. He never did that, and he was kind and respectful to women. Why should this complete lie be tolerated? It isn't a matter of religion, it's a matter of a human being blamed for a crime he did not commit.

What if a girl accused a man of raping her even though he did not? Would you argue that she has the right to "free speech"? The right to blame a man for a crime he did not commit? The right to propogate a lie?[/COLOR]

[Adahn]

I've never seen a religion where there has been such a chasm. How can people get two very different meanings from the same book? One preaches death while the other preaches nonviolence. To me, it seems this book has done more harm than good. Perhaps they blame your prophet for the actions of the militants. The crusades did happen, and they were wrong, but do we try to justify them? For the large part, no. Whatever your prophet added to the word of God has caused death and suffering. Who are we to say which is the truth? The prophet is a symbol of hope for some, but know that for many it is a symbol of great pain. It is a symbol of torture, hate, and the death of innocents. Whatever the prophets actions, it is the prophet that is responsible for what is happening now. To those who he has caused only pain, let them deface him. If you want it to stop, then fix your religion.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Adahn']I've never seen a religion where there has been such a chasm. How can people get two very different meanings from the same book?[/quote]It's more like ignoring what our religion says, and giving in to their own raging emotions.[/COLOR]

[Endymion]

[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]No, I think we should take away free speech. We should remove it from our social institutions to protect the offended. Some of those books on witchcraft, like the Harry potter series should totally be banned, they have no merit. I mean, the people in the southern states must have been horribly offended when their black ?neighbors? began demanding some sort of equality? how dare they speak up. How about the Jews? Man, they almost spoke out against the Nazis before the government there took [i]necessary[/i] and [i]appropriate[/i] measures to keeping their ?free speech? under wraps. Look at Socrates, he was such a terrible person, spreading lies about the Greek gods, corrupting Athens? youth. He was put to death far later than he should have been. And who was that Jesus guy? What was his problem claiming to be the ?Son of God?? In an ideal world, crap like that would be caught by the thought-police.

I?ve tried to ignore this thread like the plague, really. This is about to circulate in on itself again. Men and women in the western world recognize certain unalienable rights, and have died for those rights. Our nation was born out of an oppression of free speech in England, a country that burned it?s residents alive for professing a different [i]denomination[/i] of the same damn religion. Freedom of speech is a virtue that I justify from a philosophical, rational, and religious perspective. I think the way to solving our problems isn?t by ?quieting? the minority voices. Through understanding and discourse, a common ground can almost always be found; I have that much faith in humanity.

People have a right to protest whatever they believe. I have just as much a right to disagree and argue, if I choose. This sort of environment not only enlightens ourselves as a whole, but society has a beautiful tendency for evolving to accommodate the most rational and humane ideas. We are living in a world where we aren?t under a constant threat of tyranny on the same magnitude we?ve experienced? not like the middle ages, renaissance, industrial revolution, or 40?s.

I want to know [i]why[/i] this Dutch newspaper printed these pictures. I would like to understand what made people so angry about Islam that they would want to print something slanderous. Chances are, there?s a cause and effect lurking behind the scenes. I can empathize with why they might have printed these articles. The militant Islamic radicals in the middle east stormed buildings of innocent people armed to the teeth. The ?terrorists? the U.S. military is fighting are firing from the houses of innocent families, drawing dangerous gunfire to innocent civilians. During the first Gulf War, Sadaam took a well known weapon?s manufacturing plant, removed the weapons, and filled the building with [i]children[/i]. The U.S. un aware of this action, bombed the target, killing some 20 children and injuring more. The Muslims fighting against us have no respect for innocent life, choosing to execute their hostages (American soldiers sexually abused theirs in one case, in fairness). They are a people who celebrated in the street as the WTC buildings toppled to the ground, who burn American flags, and bomb civilians in the streets of Israel (a sovereign land recognized by the UN and one that gives the right to vote and serve in parliament to its Palestinian inhabitants). They believe that people should be ?held to the sword?, if they convert they are to live, if they don?t they are to be killed. Yet the Quran also states that there should be ?no compulsion in religion?. Intriguing that the militants ignore the latter. Christians had the brutal crusades, a terrible time in history where they were [i]anything[/i] but Christ-like. Militant Muslims have the Jihad. I say ?have? because the religion has spread through North African villages by gun barrel and forced coercion into the fold of Islam. In those nations, people have no freedom to live by any other method of thought or religion.

I can understand why some people have a problem with certain groups of Muslims. People have a problem with my religion; Christianity. Some people are sick of being told they will ?go to hell?. Some people are dead tired that so called ?Christians? can hold themselves in lofty moral positions; utterly disregarding the ?judge not lest ye be judged? and ?he who is without sin throw the first stone? principles of the Bible. I understand how much it pisses me off when I hear stories like this, stories of Christians who act as a stumbling block to others. And even though it pains me to say it, I respect everyone?s right to choose to [i]hate[/i] and slander against my religion as a result of this pent up anger. If I?ve seen one thing, I?ve seen the power of open dialogue to diffuse even [i]their[/i] disdain.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]
[SIZE=1]I was avoiding this thread like the plague as well, I was just talking to Goddess about that, heh. You took the words right out of my mouth though Drix. Chabichou, you mentioned something about comparing the anti-jew propaganda and the eventual start of genocide to these danish cartoons? I'm pretty sure no one in their right mind is going to launch a genocidal campaign against muslims. The world frowns upon it, and the last two fellows sticking their hand in the cookie jar...Saddam Hussein and Slabodan Milosevic, were firmly handed their defeats. It's not as if Hitler is pulling the strings of the the non-muslim world, getting ready for his next big fling. Anyway..Sure, the 'toons were of bad taste. However, the muslims reaction to them is also in bad taste. [/SIZE] [/COLOR]

[Aaryanna]

[quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f'] I think we should talk about now, wether people should have the right to publish these kinds of cartoons. Many of you have argued for complete free speech. Do you honestly think that free speech means people can spread lies?[/COLOR][/quote][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]I still think they have the right to publish the cartoons. Even if it does mean they are lying. They are entitled to their opinion whether or not you or anyone else agrees. And we are talking about a cartoon here. These people are making fun of the fact that some Muslims think it?s okay to kill others for daring to have a different opinion. It?s sad but true.[/COLOR][QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f] Those cartoonists, and their newspaper, are a bunch of cowards --spreading lies, and offending muslims under the guise of freedom of speech. When one insults Muhammad, it's a big, big, deal, because not only do muslims love and respect their prophet, they take him as the example of good conduct and behaviour. If one insults, Muhammad, he insults all muslims.

When people read these cartoons, some of them actuallty believe them, and eventually, people will hate muslims, they will see them as dangerous, and eventually, people will want to exterminate muslims.[/COLOR][/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]How do you know that they are cowards? Until we find out exactly why the cartoonists printed the cartoon you really don?t know. For all you know they may have lost loved ones to terrorist attacks. It?s still wrong to insult an entire religion for the actions of a few, but honestly to say they are cowards is an assumption. They could have a good reason for feeling the way they do.

Sure some people will believe what they read but that?s not a good reason to take away people?s freedom of speech. It?s not the newspapers fault that people take a cartoon for truth. It?s supposed to make fun of situations. Cartoons have never claimed to be the truth. And seriously I can see why they would find the concept that Muslims say they love and respect their prophet and yet some will kill you for disagreeing with them funny. It isn?t a true representation of the Muslim people or their religion obviously, just them poking fun at those who take things to the extreme.
[/COLOR][quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]So think about it. Do you support ignorance and racism, and those who spread them under the guise of "free speech"?[/COLOR][/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]Yes I do. Think about it. Denying people the right to say what they want will not change the fact that they are ignorant or a racist. All it will do is make them resent you for attempting taking away their right to have a different opinion.[/COLOR][QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f']What if a girl accused a man of raping her even though he did not? Would you argue that she has the right to "free speech"? The right to blame a man for a crime he did not commit? The right to propogate a lie?[/COLOR][/quote][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]Once again, she does have the right and if it is proven that she did lie about it she will get in trouble with the law.

There will always be people who lie and hate others, we can?t expect newspapers or governments to control what others think or say. You can?t tell someone his or her opinion is wrong and expect him or her to change just because you want him or her too.

The cartoonists are objecting to the fact that some Muslims will kill you for not agreeing with them. It?s ugly, but true. What they made fun of in the cartoon may not be true, but it is true that there are those who will kill you. I would call that true oppression of freedom of speech. Think about it, other religions are insulted by cartoons or articles on a regular basis, but you don?t see their members burning embassies.
[/COLOR]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]Drix, I am in no way against free speech, but those cartoons are not "free speech". They are simply racist, hateful derogatory remarks made about an entire population of people of comprising of 1.2 billion people.

Free speech is supposed to serve the purpose of our societies progressing, not regressing. Of course the jews should have spoken out against hitler! That's what real free speech is about. But if you look back to my example, in germany, racist cartoons were being printed about jews, and look at the tragety that resulted from the propogation of racism and lies. Why should these types of racist and untruthful images be tolerated? Why should we tolerate lies?

Drix, I am not only standing up for muslims here. I don't think any offensive and or images should be printed about any religious or ethnic group.

And drix, I understand how people can be angry with certain Islamic radicals. It's not right to bomb buildings filled with innocent civilians. But people need to understand that these radicals do not make up the majority of muslims. And they certainly aren't following Muhammad's teachings.

More cartoons have popped up over the internet, much worse than those in the newspapers. One showing Muhammad raping one of his wives. He never did that, and he was kind and respectful to women. Why should this complete lie be tolerated? It isn't a matter of religion, it's a matter of a human being blamed for a crime he did not commit.

What if a girl accused a man of raping her even though he did not? Would you argue that she has the right to "free speech"? The right to blame a man for a crime he did not commit? The right to propogate a lie?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Absolutely, I support the right for people to lie. Maybe not in court, but even then, we can?t control people entirely. Absolutely should people be allowed to curse the name of their political leaders, religious leaders, and peers. Absolutely should I be allowed to oppose that with reasons of my own, however futile that may be. I support the right for someone to call a black person a ******. I despise the word, I hate the fact that people do it, and I?ll speak out against the spread of lies. I will use my freedom of speech to write retaliatory letters against slander and racism, and I would have marched to the Washington Mall to support the freedom of speech that earned the oppressed minorities their place in American society.

Your inductive logic is flawed. Chabichou, the holocaust was a result of far more than negative propaganda against the Jews. Sure, it was part of it, but most of the holocaust came from the strict organization [i]against[/i] their businesses and freedoms. If anything, the holocaust is more a removal of Jewish freedoms than a misappropriation of Nazi freedoms. The sort of reasoning is like ?Hitler had a mustache, Sadaam had a mustache, Stalin had a mustache; therefore any man with a mustache is more evil than one without a mustache!? Let?s be deductive, here.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=Adahn][size=2]This is an example of what happens when religion gets tied up in politics. Here's a mathematical analogy to help you.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Religion=bad[/size]
[size=2]Politics=bad[/size]
[size=2]Religion + Politics = badbad[/size]

[/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff][font=lucida calligraphy]Am I allowed to say amen? Oh wait...

I agree with that math analogy. Religion and politics shouldn't mix because you anger a lot of people.

I've heard about this cartoon all over the place. It wasn't about insulting a religion, it was about disrespecting beliefs. As Chabichou stated Muslims are not allowed to portray images of Mahamed (Sp?) So it's just more than a political cartoon.
[/color][/font]

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]On this same note of the depiction of Mohammad, I came across a rather interesting article on one of the Sunday newspapers. I'll quote the article, though it's small enough, and let people make up their own minds. [/SIZE]

[quote=Sunday Mirror, February 5th 2006][FONT=Trebuchet MS]Images of the Prophet Mohammad are on display at Dublin's Chester Beatty Library.

Depictions of the Prophet are considered blasphemous by most Muslims, and the library has had a few complaints.

However, Director Michael Ryan said that the images are "historical documents" and are displayed discreetly.

Across the world Muslims are protesting at newspaper cartoons of the Prophet, one of which shows his turban as a bomb.

Muslims in Ireland have said they are "extremely offended" by the cartoons.
The Chester Beatty Library shows several miniatures of the Prophet, many in manuscripts by Sufi Muslims from the Persian Empire.

Mr Ryan said: "Some have voiced concern about the texts. But we regard them as historical documents, though when they are on display we don't shout about it. We try to be discreet."

The Imam of the Islamic Foundation of Ireland, Sheikh Yayha Al Hussein, said he had written to the library a few years ago to tell them "it was wrong" to display the images.

He said: "Generally these are images done a long time ago by other Muslims.
"We don't want to protest to the Irish museum about it now, but they wouldn?t be shown in a Muslim country."[/FONT][/quote]

[SIZE=1]Personally I'm not sure exactly what the problem is here, on the one hand I can accept that iconism is not allowed by the Qur'an and as such in countries with a high Muslim population these images would not be available for a library to display. However on the other hand if we look strictly at the facts, these images are on display in a country where the vast majority of the population are Catholic, and thus the idea that it is wrong to display them because they are controversial to another religion could be debated, as perhaps a Muslim calling Christ merely a Prophet is Ireland could be described as controversial.

The images are not depicting Mohammad in any vulgar or insulting form and thus mightn't be described as being genuinely offensive to Muslims. As well as that they are historical documents, documenting a period of time in the Middle East which many scholars would find fascinating and the opportunity to view work created in that period should be available for anyone of any denomination to view. I accept that some devout Muslims would have issue with them, but I don't understand why they would ask for them to be removed in a country where the vast majority of people do not accept Mohammad as anything other than a man. While I can empathise with their religious beliefs, those same beliefs should not be forced on the majority of people.

Opinions ?[/SIZE]

[Shinmaru]

I think that Drix is right on the money.

The big problem with restricting "offensive" speech is this: Who's to say what is and isn't offensive and what "serves the purpose of society's progression" and what doesn't? It seems like common sense but it really isn't. South Park, for example, has [i]tons[/i] of stuff that many people would consider offensive, but it also has lots of incredibly sharp political and social satire. I would definitely say that South Park contributes towards the progression of society, but someone else might not think so due to the show's offensive content. Degrees of offensiveness of speech and the speech's worth to society are very, very subjective, and I don't think that there is (or ever will be) any one standard to actually measure those qualities by. Should I be able to force NBC to never show an episode of Friends in syndication because I think the show's a dull, vapid waste of space and doesn't contribute to society? Or because I'm offended by how seriously unfunny the show is? Of course not! If NBC wants to stink up the airwaves with Friends, and if lots of people watch the show, then that's their prerogative. Just like NBC has the freedom to put a crappy show on the air, I have the freedom to completely ignore it.

It's the same thing with the political cartoons, in my opinion. Political cartoons have been offending people for [i]centuries[/i] - frankly, I would expect a political cartoon to be at least somewhat offensive to [i]somebody[/i]. If everyone agreed on the point that a political cartoon was making, then what would be the point to making it in the first place? Political cartoons are inherently controversial. I can't say that I care too much for the way the cartoonists are making their point, nor do I think the cartoons are very witty or funny, but I don't think that curbing the cartoonist's (or anybody's) right to expression is the way to go. Just as these cartoonists have the right to produce offensive cartoons, we all have the right condemn them. [i]That[/i] can be done without completely infringing upon individual rights lol.

Also, I don't think that the "lies" argument holds up very well, because the cartoon is clearly based in opinion rather than being an actual statement of fact. Statements of opinion are, and should be, protected speech, even if they are "offensive" opinions. From what I understand, the cartoonists drew absurd caricatures of Muhammad as a representation of self-censorship - the cartoons depicted Muhammad in that manner in order to state an opinion, which was elaborated on in the article accompanying the cartoons, and not to paint him as a terrorist. It's obvious to me, at least, that Muhammad wasn't a violent terrorist who carried a bomb under his turban. I don't think that any reasonable person would believe that; someone who is foolish enough to think that because of the cartoon probably already held that belief in the first place, honestly.

[SunfallE]

[COLOR=DarkOliveGreen]All this fuss over a cartoon? Seriously I think people are overreacting. Since when does the Muslim community have the right to dictate to others what they can and cannot print? Cartoons are not truth! They make fun of all sorts of ridiculous situations! The problem is that no matter what you print somewhere you will find someone who is offended by it.

I was reading in the local paper today that some of the Muslims are demanding that the cartoonist be tried for blasphemy. It?s ridiculous to think that your way or religion is the only way on Earth. So what if other people don?t agree with you? It?s not the end of the world.

This is hardly a reason to do away with freedom of speech. If nothing else it is a good example of why we need freedom of speech. All that is happening from the riots and burning embassies is that a few Muslims are making the rest of the others look like a bunch of idiots who can?t handle someone thinking differently than they do.

Yes the cartoons are offensive and in poor taste but its no excuse to attack others who have nothing to do with it. It?s not the first time a religion has been insulted by a political cartoon and it certainly won?t be the last. [/COLOR]

[Pupmon]

I for one am not upset at all towards the reactions that the Muslims have shown. In my opinion, the Danish newspaper was very foolish to release these cartoons to the public. If they wanted to use the cartoons as a poster-child for freedom of the press, it would have been better to release it on the internet. I believe that those of you who believe the Muslims should "get over it", apprently do not understand Muslims very well. The Muslims are a people who are not used to the things that we non-Muslims deal with every day, such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press. As has been stated earlier, religion occupies a great deal of the Muslims' lifestyle, due to their theorcratic(?) goverment. Which is the main reason why they are taking this issue as hard as they are. We must remember that Muslims are people, and people differ from one another, therefore, one Muslim might have found this cartoon absolutely hilarious, while another might have found it absolutely horrific, as most Muslims already have. It is not good for we, an open-minded liberal people to judge the Muslims by our liberal standards. I am not not completely condoning the Muslims actions, however, at least I understand and [I]sympathize[/I] with how they feel and the actions they are taking.

[king_monkey]

I am offended, mostly at them depicting Muhammad in such a racist manner. Rascism should not be tolerated, even if it is free speech. Free speech doesn't mean you can tell [B]complete lies[/B]. Some of those cartoons are hate crimes, that' all there is to it.

If they don't follow Islam, fine, they can draw Muhammad if they want, but not in such a disgusting manner.


Meanwhile, the cartoonists have deliberately drawn Muhammad to offend muslims.[/B]

They can't associate Muhammad with what certain people who claim to be muslim do. He never killed innocent people.

Im muslim too so i agree totally but what can you do in a nonmuslim country we'll just have to let ALLAH(God) deal with the ignorant a22 infidells. :lecture:

[Gen. Andronicus]

"In reaction to the articles, several death threats have been made, resulting in the cartoonists reportedly going into hiding and the newspaper enhancing its security precautions. "
--Wikipedia

I just wanted to point out how funny that was.

Anyway, has anyone noticed how ambiguos these cartoons actually are? I mean , I'm not going to try and explain all of them, however, the two that I have been hearing the most about could be taken multiple ways. Here I go:

The one depicting Muhammed with a bomb under his turban could possibly be saying that "Islam is based in terroism," but it's not beyond me to also think that they meant it as a joke on the people who actually believe that statement to be true. It would be similar to a cartoon of Jesus saying "Love your neighbor, unless they're gay." Most of the world seems to think that the drawings are pretty ridiculous, so it would seem that the cartoon actually WORKS best when considered that way.

The one where Muhammed is "receiving" terrorists in to heaven works in a similar fashion. And actually, I find it hard to think that this one was meant any other way. It's making fun of Islamic extemists who are considered terrorists, is it not? Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but there are known cases of Islamic zealots thinking that they will be rewarded for giving up there lives in the process of being terrorists. If this is true, then this cartoon is simply stating that these extremists have worked there way all the way up to being disappointed. Hmm...

[Adahn]

[size=2]Where is the outrage against the militant Islamists? The cartoonists have drawn what they see. Please, tell me of the Islamic country that follows the nonviolent teachings of the prophet. Are the followers of true Islam, if nonviolence be truth, not willing to stand and defend their beliefs? From what I have learned from the news, at least, it seems that all the leaders do not follow Islam as it should be followed.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]The cartoonists may depict the religious icon in a disrespectful manner, but the violent Muslims defecate on his name and teachings. How about trying to stop those who actually hurt people, rather than focus your hate on those who hurt your feelings?[/size]

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Adahn][size=2']The cartoonists may depict the religious icon in a disrespectful manner, but the violent Muslims defecate on his name and teachings. How about trying to stop those who actually hurt people, rather than focus your hate on those who hurt your feelings?[/size][/quote]I'm not focusing my hate on anyone. I condemn both the cartoons and the ridulous, meaningless riots that some muslims are engaging in the middle east. I am personally shocked that the authorities have let it come this far. I am absolutely disgusted, and I also fear for Danish people who have done nothing wrong.

I think there is no excuse [B]whatsoever[/B] for the riots going on in the middle east. But I do think muslims have the right to be angry and to protest peacefully. Just because THEY are rioting, that doens't mean the rest of us peacefloving muslims have to take insults lightly. You can't insult the radical muslims at the expense of the peaceful ones. That's not very fair.

My mother's friend's daughter, who's 11 or 12 I think is writing a letter to the Danish prime minister. In Toronto, there are peaceful protests. Is there anything wrong with that?

It's as though you expect us to bow down to the west as though they're some higher being. I'm not going to support Denmark instead of standing up for my religion and my prophet. I will stand up for my religion, AND protest against the meanignless riots directed at the Danish people.

Got a problem with that?[/COLOR]

[Endymion]

[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue][SIZE=1]Joe Scarborough is usually good at explaining things...[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[U][URL=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6330851/]His latest...[/URL] [/U]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='king_monkey] Free speech doesn't mean you can tell [B]complete lies[/B']. [/quote]
Why yes, yes it does.

[quote name='king_monkey']Some of those cartoons are hate crimes, that' all there is to it.[/quote]
Hate Crimes? Please. The cartoons were acts of sheer stupidity, but to put them on the same level as violence is rediculous. As I've already said, sticks and stones people. Are we too proud to just brush people of as idiots?

[Sandy]

Heh, that guy's at least outspoken. ;P I believe that Chabichou is telling one side of the story, while this Scarborough-guy is telling another side.

This whole issue is not as black-and-white as either of them tries to claim. Muslim radicals aren't just a tiny minority, but they aren't a large majority either (not to mention the entire Islamic population). The cartoons were wrong, but they pale in comparison to what the Muslim radicals have done in the past and are currently doing. But on the other hand, they have their own reasons for their actions.

I strongly believe that Denmark is one of the last countries who should apologize for their actions. The whole population of this planet needs one big group hug. ;D

Too bad we don't live in that kind of world, so this stupid feud will go on before the other side nukes the other. X( Then we'll have another 50 years of peace before the next big collision.

[Gen. Andronicus]

[QUOTE=king_monkey]I am offended, mostly at them depicting Muhammad in such a racist manner. Rascism should not be tolerated, even if it is free speech. Free speech doesn't mean you can tell [B]complete lies[/B]. Some of those cartoons are hate crimes, that' all there is to it.
[/QUOTE]

How is it racist? Just because a person is middle-eastern doesn't mean that they follow the religion of Islam. The cartoons don't seem to be assuming that either. There is no Islamic race, it's a religion. Also, please explain how these cartoons can ONLY be taken as insults to followers of Islam who practice it peacfully? It is still my opinion that they were instead intended only towards the extremists, as well as towards legalisms that the certain cartoonists felt were worthy of being made fun of. For instance, the one with the artist looking over his shoulder is an example of legalistic satire. One thing that you, king_monkey seem to understand is that if people are making fun of something you believe with all your heart, than there should be no problem just brushing it off and letting what you know to be true come true. However, your attitude contridicts this idea. If you didn't read my other post please read that before replying to this one. Oh well, I know I'm not going to change any peoples minds (as if it were possible to do so on OB), but I'm okay with that.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f]I think king monkey tried to quote me and messed up his post. Your quotes of king monkey are actually mine.

Sorry, I misuesed the word racist, of course not all arabs are muslims. I guess I meant to say 'discriminatory'?[/COLOR]

[Aaryanna]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]I'm not focusing my hate on anyone. I condemn both the cartoons and the ridulous, meaningless riots that some muslims are engaging in the middle east. I am personally shocked that the authorities have let it come this far. I am absolutely disgusted, and I also fear for Danish people who have done nothing wrong.

I think there is no excuse [B]whatsoever[/B] for the riots going on in the middle east. But I do think muslims have the right to be angry and to protest peacefully. Just because THEY are rioting, that doens't mean the rest of us peacefloving muslims have to take insults lightly. You can't insult the radical muslims at the expense of the peaceful ones. That's not very fair.

My mother's friend's daughter, who's 11 or 12 I think is writing a letter to the Danish prime minister. In Toronto, there are peaceful protests. Is there anything wrong with that?

It's as though you expect us to bow down to the west as though they're some higher being. I'm not going to support Denmark instead of standing up for my religion and my prophet. I will stand up for my religion, AND protest against the meanignless riots directed at the Danish people.

Got a problem with that?[/COLOR][/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]
I?m glad to hear that there are those who are protesting in a peaceful manner. But to say you can?t insult the radical Muslims at the expense of the peaceful ones because it?s not fair is in itself not fair. Since when were insults suppose to somehow be fair? We?re talking about insults here, last time I checked an insult was never meant to be fair. That?s why it?s called an insult. [/COLOR][QUOTE=Sandy]Heh, that guy's at least outspoken. ;P I believe that Chabichou is telling one side of the story, while this Scarborough-guy is telling another side.

This whole issue is not as black-and-white as either of them tries to claim. Muslim radicals aren't just a tiny minority, but they aren't a large majority either (not to mention the entire Islamic population). The cartoons were wrong, but they pale in comparison to what the Muslim radicals have done in the past and are currently doing. But on the other hand, they have their own reasons for their actions.

I strongly believe that Denmark is one of the last countries who should apologize for their actions. The whole population of this planet needs one big group hug. ;D

Too bad we don't live in that kind of world, so this stupid feud will go on before the other side nukes the other. X( Then we'll have another 50 years of peace before the next big collision.[/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]Seems to me that both sides refuse to admit that they are wrong and expect the other to bow down to them so to speak. [B]Sandy[/B] is right, the cartoons pale in comparison. Sounds like everyone needs to be put in a corner for a time out. >_< And I still think its like [B]Morpheus[/B] said, sticks and stones.
[/COLOR]

[Anime Elf]

Wow. It's just a cartoon. I think that everyone just needs to realize that. Instead, the embassy was burned, London was bombed, and Muslims want the cartoonists hands cut off. Over a cartoon.

Since we're speaking of cartoons that depict a middle eastern religion in a bad light, what about cartoons coming from Muslims that portray extremely Anti-Semetic messages? Is this a case of "you can dish it out but not take it"? I think so. Now considering the contest for Holocaust cartoons, I think that the Muslims are trying to return to being the "dishers."

It's not like we don't have Anti-Chritian stuff going on in America. Remember back when that artists painted the Virgin Mary, Baby Jesus, and some other figures and smeared it with feces? The Court ruled it was okay because it was freedom of expression (although I'm sure the smell would be considered offensive by anybody). The point is, America deals with Anti-Religious stuff all the time, in a country with a majority of Christians. Sure the painting didn't go over well, but we didn't have any death threats or threats of another 9/11 type attack. Europe has about a ten percent Muslim population (most of them have come into Europe by choice). They were offending a minority that has resorted to doing some pretty outrageous things. If a majority in America can take satire in stride, a minority in Europe certainly should be able to.

And there was that whole soldier with no limbs comic, that, while it enraged many many many people, was still deemed Constitutional.

Freedom of speech means that everyone can say what they want (well, there are limits like yelling fire in a public place or things partaining to national security, but I digress). Like what has been said before, someone will always be offended by something. No one was forcing anyone to look at the comics (which was one person's written satire, not even, oh, let's say, a book. To bad that guy's still on the run). Have a cartoon war or something (wait, nevermind). Peaceful protests people. We don't need even more fighting in the Middle East.