Danish cartoon and rioting

[scorpia]

Cartoons of the prophet Mohammed have outraged muslims

For some weird reason it reminds me of this site here;

We not only admit it, but we're proud of it, actually. It's part of the nature of most natural-born comedians. We want to piss off Prick Publications. Fundies are at their funniest when their inbred fears and paranoias are fed. They start to get all uptight, say they're "under attack", and go into their siege mentality. We don't expect Chick to end up like the Branch Davidians. I expect them to behave more like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson did a few years back, when hackers and crank phone-callers phreaked their phone lines and made thousands of phoney pledges. Chick will likely claim that his ministry is under attack by satanic forces or something. Of course, it would be kinda fun for them take us as a serious satanic threat. That would actually feel good. Imagine the power of humor -- a few parodies and satires make a fundy go over the edge.

So is making fun of some extremist/ fundamentist funny? Or is it about time people stopped throwing insults just so they can feel proud over their injured jaws that they may or may not deserve?

A while ago, when I was younger, I had left a bus to run into a group of boys throwing lewd comments at me, t6hinking it was funny. Their leader was yelling at me "Show us your ****!" at which point i walked up to him and punched him hard on the jaw. Yeah, i reacted violently, but was it so wrong? yes, I could have handled it better, but to be honest, I'd do it again. Did that boy deserve it?

[scorpia]

This whole debacle is unfortunate in so many ways. The publications of the cartoons in the conservative Danish newspaper are a reflection of the growing tension (and ignorance) between Europe and Islam. Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of all this is that Islamic leaders have used the cartoons to point a finger at Denmark (and symbolically all european and secular society) saying 'look, they all hate us, hate our religion, and seek to belittle us,' while those who seek to denigrate Islam and Muslims have used the response of a few violent fundamentalist Muslim sects to point a finger at all Muslims and Islam as a religion and say 'look, we told you so. they are all violent and savage, just like their religion." Leaders of both parties have used the cartoons to demonize the opposition and fuel ignorance, proliferating hate mongering through unscrupulous and dishonest means, rather than engage in an open, civil discourse. It's not about free speech and anti-Islam, but about intolerance and leaders who weald the trust of their followers to fuel hatred.

Yes the cartoons were hateful and wrong (for starters they didn't even take into account that Mohammed's main response to opposition while he spread his message was the same as Jesus's on the cross: to pray for those who knew no better), and yes the ensuing violence was terrible, but unfortunately amidst all of this, ignorance continues to blossom and more walls are being built up between fellow humans. "Free speech" and "Muslims are violent" chants are a smoke screen covering up underlying social problems and a red herring distracting masses from engaging in civil debate leading towards understanding and mutual respect.

Precisely

[Vladd44]

Luckily for me, it doesn't really matter to me what Islam prohibits.

Even though I rarely drink anymore, I had a little alcohol while viewing them for the first time. I figured if it was offensive to draw them, or view them, it may be even more offensive to view them while drinking alcohol.

In the event any muslim reads this, I was also defaming the name of Mr M and allah at the same time.

But seriously, it really isn't my problem that Islam prohibits them from making an image of their prophet. If they believe that, then by all means don't draw one.

The only one that had any humour for me was the one with M telling them to stop the suicide attacks because they were running out of virgins. I guess they could always order out.

[QED]

It's not even that. It's forbidden in Islam to portray Mohammed, good or bad, with an artistic object.

Then it's blasphemy..... Or desecration....

I have a serious problem with this one. A very good reason for not throwing down your litter in the street is "what if everyone did it?". Now what if everyone starts a religion? Seriously, there is no shortage of different religious sects at the present day. They've all got their foibles, and some are pretty bizarre by the standards of the rest of the world. These foibles are mostly arbitrary and if they are automatically to be considered taboo we might literally end up not being able to walk on the cracks in the pavement.

OK, I'm pushing on one extreme end of an argument to give it some leverage, but I sincerely believe that rather than having the breaking of taboos outlawed we should be outlawing the making of taboos. People will always get picked on for something. The best policy in the school yard is not to react. From the point of view of a non-believer it looks suspiciously as if the sort of reaction being seen in cases like this might be born out of a deep-seated lack of confidence in holding a belief. Even if it isn't, such a display clearly runs the great risk of appearing this way.

[scorpia]

OK, I'm pushing on one extreme end of an argument to give it some leverage, but I sincerely believe that rather than having the breaking of taboos outlawed we should be outlawing the making of taboos.

Perhaps. Or more like outlawing both to some degree for some balance?

People will always get picked on for something. The best policy in the school yard is not to react. From the point of view of a non-believer it looks suspiciously as if the sort of reaction being seen in cases like this might be born out of a deep-seated lack of confidence in holding a belief. Even if it isn't, such a display clearly runs the great risk of appearing this way.

Do you mean it is supposed to be similair to bullying, done out of low self-esteem?

It may be the case, or it may be not. But it isn't the best thing to presume it. Eg. a non-believer could be constantly harrased for his unbelief to such an extent that he will react, not because he is uncomfortable by what he doesn't believe but because he's simply fed up with the attitude. the same may happen for a believer. Reacting over what seems to be little may be because what has happened was just the feather on the camel's back.

Granted that there ARE better ways to react than violently but then people unfortunately let their emotions get the worst of them.

Then there's the whole "It's blasphemy" deal, and to some, breaking a religious law is as bad as breaking any law. When somebody breaks the law and people protest against such an action that isn't exactly because they don't have much confidence that the law they follow is right, is it?

[QED]

OK, I'm pushing on one extreme end of an argument to give it some leverage, but I sincerely believe that rather than having the breaking of taboos outlawed we should be outlawing the making of taboos.

Perhaps. Or more like outlawing both to some degree for some balance?

But this demands that a particular taboo can be justified in an absolute sense. Such matters are invariably culturally dependent and while the imperative for cultural diversity persists no such absolutes will exist. The more taboos that are made, the more scope there will be for upset.

Do you mean it is supposed to be similair to bullying, done out of low self-esteem?

I mean that most aggressive reaction comes from being cornered. I think that understanding how we allow ourselves to become cornered is the key to calming the world down.

Then there's the whole "It's blasphemy" deal, and to some, breaking a religious law is as bad as breaking any law. When somebody breaks the law and people protest against such an action that isn't exactly because they don't have much confidence that the law they follow is right, is it?

Perhaps it is. People don't go out protesting when people break civil laws and those are generally founded upon justifiable grounds. Anyone can start up a new religion today and with the wonder of modern communications have followers from all around the globe tomorrow. They could choose to worship anything at all and declare anything a blasphemy as a result. I don't think this should be permissible.

[Vladd44]

What I find astounding is the hypocrisy.

Most christians think the muslims are overreacting to this issue. And I would agree.

If muslims believe it is wrong to make representations of Mohammed , then by all means they should avoid making them. But that hardly means it should become law of the land for anyone.

But the same christians would scream, cry and moan about gay marriage. If your religion teaches you that two men or two women getting married is wrong, the by all mean, PLEASE by all means don't get naked and climb into bed with someone of the same gender.

But they seem to be unable to understand that its the same issue. Do what you see fit, live life as your religious dictates require, but speaking for myself, two women together is a beautiful thing

[Cephus]

So is making fun of some extremist/ fundamentist funny? Or is it about time people stopped throwing insults just so they can feel proud over their injured jaws that they may or may not deserve?

It's hysterical. Most of these people need to have the wind taken out of their overblown sails. Of course, it would be nice for these fanatics to actually *THINK* about why people make fun of them, but rational thought is usually beyond them, that's why they're extremist/fundamentalist in the first place.

[scorpia]

It's hysterical. Most of these people need to have the wind taken out of their overblown sails. Of course, it would be nice for these fanatics to actually *THINK* about why people make fun of them, but rational thought is usually beyond them, that's why they're extremist/fundamentalist in the first place.

So in this example;

Eg. a non-believer could be constantly harrased for his unbelief to such an extent that he will react, not because he is uncomfortable by what he doesn't believe but because he's simply fed up with the attitude.

What was done there was right? That the unbeliever who gets offended is the one with the problem because he is the one who lacks rational thought?

Humour is only in the eye of the beholder.

But this demands that a particular taboo can be justified in an absolute sense. Such matters are invariably culturally dependent and while the imperative for cultural diversity persists no such absolutes will exist. The more taboos that are made, the more scope there will be for upset.

So they should just break the taboos and forget sensitivity to those who may be offended?

I mean that most aggressive reaction comes from being cornered. I think that understanding how we allow ourselves to become cornered is the key to calming the world down.

There are other reasons which are causes of violence, and I don't know if "being cornered" is right in this particular case. How are these muslims cornered? There is already a majority of them and their religion is growing rapidly in places like America or Australia.

Perhaps it is. People don't go out protesting when people break civil laws and those are generally founded upon justifiable grounds.

Depending the follower though, a religious law is just as justifiable as a civil law, and so protesting against the breaking of those laws is also justifiable.

Anyone can start up a new religion today and with the wonder of modern communications have followers from all around the globe tomorrow. They could choose to worship anything at all and declare anything a blasphemy as a result. I don't think this should be permissible.

That is simply one extreme. The other one may be that people may go so far as to get rid of all laws. Maybe getting rid of laws is just as bad. There should be balance.

[Dion]

So in this example;

Eg. a non-believer could be constantly harrased for his unbelief to such an extent that he will react, not because he is uncomfortable by what he doesn't believe but because he's simply fed up with the attitude.

What was done there was right? That the unbeliever who gets offended is the one with the problem because he is the one who lacks rational thought?

Humour is only in the eye of the beholder.

constantly harrased

But who is constantly harassing muslims to look at these cartoons? If they don't want to see them they shouldn't look at them.

It may be part of their religious law but it certainly isn't part of mine. If I were living in a muslim country I would respect their laws but why should I be bound by their laws in any non-muslim country?

I cannot see that muslims have any right to tell everyone else in the world what they may and may not do.

As for sensitivity; yes, indeed, I might refrain from doing something that I thought might cause gratuitous offence, but that would be out of good manners - not because I had been coerced into it.

[QED]

But this demands that a particular taboo can be justified in an absolute sense. Such matters are invariably culturally dependent and while the imperative for cultural diversity persists no such absolutes will exist. The more taboos that are made, the more scope there will be for upset.

So they should just break the taboos and forget sensitivity to those who may be offended?

How do you propose we ration the number of taboos in the world scorpia? Clearly the more there are, the more chances there are for upsets. If people intent on mischief don't get a reaction they give up and try something else.

I mean that most aggressive reaction comes from being cornered. I think that understanding how we allow ourselves to become cornered is the key to calming the world down.

There are other reasons which are causes of violence, and I don't know if "being cornered" is right in this particular case. How are these muslims cornered? There is already a majority of them and their religion is growing rapidly in places like America or Australia.

Irrespective of population size each individual member holds an intellectual position of some sort. That position can be challenged on a one-to-one basis by calling it into question in the way that this particular satire did.

People don't go out protesting when people break civil laws and those are generally founded upon justifiable grounds.

Depending the follower though, a religious law is just as justifiable as a civil law, and so protesting against the breaking of those laws is also justifiable.

I would argue that ultimately no religious law can be justified -- as the basis for all religion is taking the word of man on trust. This is because no independent verification of divine revelation is possible. Irrespective of this side-track issue, I repeat that riots do not break out over the breaking of civil law so hinting at some deeper psychology in the case of the breaking of religious law.

Anyone can start up a new religion today and with the wonder of modern communications have followers from all around the globe tomorrow. They could choose to worship anything at all and declare anything a blasphemy as a result. I don't think this should be permissible.

That is simply one extreme. The other one may be that people may go so far as to get rid of all laws. Maybe getting rid of laws is just as bad. There should be balance.

I would argue that civil law in a free and democratic nation is as pragmatic and as sparing in it's scope as possible. At the other end of the spectrum is Religion replete with its arbitrary customs, icons and rituals. I am making a case for there being no such thing as "Religious law" with respect to the standard definition of Religion as "a belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny" (a typical definition). Not, that is, until such a supernatural power can be demonstrated to exist.