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?

[Cephus]

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

No, they should realize that there is a reasonable response and an unreasonable response. Unfortunately, they usually choose the unreasonable response. If they don't like what's printed, they should peacefully complain. They should boycott the newspaper. They need to realize that the planet isn't going to bow down to their whims. Instead, they try to kill people and cause public destruction. That is not a reasonable response to the problem. Islam needs to grow the hell up.

[scorpia]

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.

Then again are civil laws justifiable? Some are but some might not be.

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.

Then what about the riots at Cronulla earlier this year? they may have been sparked by the breakings of civil laws....... Plus it made the lebanese/ muslims look good.

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.

No, they should realize that there is a reasonable response and an unreasonable response. Unfortunately, they usually choose the unreasonable response. If they don't like what's printed, they should peacefully complain. They should boycott the newspaper. They need to realize that the planet isn't going to bow down to their whims. Instead, they try to kill people and cause public destruction. That is not a reasonable response to the problem. Islam needs to grow the hell up.

All right you've got me there However, I would like to know what exactly qualifies as to "peacefully complain" and what doesn't.

[Cephus]

All right you've got me there However, I would like to know what exactly qualifies as to "peacefully complain" and what doesn't.

I think we can assume that burning down buildings and issuing death threats does not qualify, can't we?

[scorpia]

I think we can assume that burning down buildings and issuing death threats does not qualify, can't we?

Very much. But what about, say, retaliating with their own cartoon, would that be right?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

A similar scenario has evolved at a local college in my area, Radford University. A student has been drawing cartoons depicting Jesus in a number of modern college scenarios. These cartoons, posted on the university's online magazine (http://www.radford.edu/~whim/toon/articles/jc6.html), cleverly display many of the hypocrisies of the Bible/Christianity, which has angered a number of local Christians. The college administration is talking about ways to "bridge the gap between free speech and good taste". Translation, "How dare you present Christianity in a bad light!".

These drawings are pretty mild IMO, but you can really see the correlation between the two situations.



People just need to learn how to take a joke.

[scorpia]

But is it right?

And do people really HAVE to think it's funny?

[Cephus]

But is it right?

And do people really HAVE to think it's funny?

Who cares if they think it's funny? People do not have a right not to be offended and people do not have a right to riot when they are offended. It doesn't matter what their religion, skin color, gender, nationality, or whatever, they do not have a right to act in a violent manner just because someone said or did something that pissed them off. Period.

[scorpia]

I think that's covered but I'd like to know what people do have a right to do or not do.

[Cephus]

If people have legitimate grievances, there are methods for having them addressed proscribed by law.