Have Fun, RT
 

The image of The Prophet was blasphemous to the religion of Islam. The image of Mary, Mother of God with elephant feces thrown all over it was blasphemous to religion(s) as well.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/com...vmary%20bw.JPG

If there is a difference in how blasphemous one was as compared to the other, I don't think it's a meaningful one. Maybe you are viewing them as different because of how you view the relative positions of power of those blasphemed (Muslims: downtrodden, poor; Christians: less likely to be downtrodden, poor). I can respect a gut reaction or feeling, but....

Have Fun, RT
 

As a Pakistani Muslim who has lived in the UK and the US and currently is in the States, my perspective is that I know the attitude that you have encountered but would counter that the super majority of Muslims are moderates or liberals and want peace. And are against violence for any reason. But, we also want to be understood and respected within our adopted societies and within the world community.

While the cartoons are trivial in the grand scheme and any reasonable, civilised and intelligent person know this and seek to move the debate to a higher plane, there is an element of unnecessary hatefulness inherent in this incident and throughout the world based on an ignorance of Islam. Look at some of the posters here.

Anyone who resorts to hate speech or violence, regardless of their god, should be ashamed. I feel my duty as an emissary of my religion and my god is to have respect for all peace-loving, fair-minded people in my native lands, my adopted home and trhoughtout the World, Islamic or not.

The tiny minority of extremist thugs that misrespresent Islam must be roundly chastised and the violence condemned. They are enemies of Allah and Islam. But we should also look into our hearts and purge the shades of racism that exist within Western societies and cure the ignorance that helps fuel the flames of the violent thugs. Ignorance is as much bliss as destructive, it seems and can be as dangerous and provocative as actual violence. No matter where you live or what your faith is.

Diane, I hope you understand this and together the peace loving humanists within both of our societies can find the harmonious common ground.

Have Fun, RT
 

in about an hour you'll catch up and realize i won this argument by default. let's see if we can't work together.

will you contact judged.com, tell them you're a mod and see if they'll cancel the fake Hank Chinaski on reciprocity or mod-based professional courtesy? The guy just stole the sock to enflame me.

Have Fun, RT
 

Let's stick to Christianity. What makes that blasphemous?

Have Fun, RT
 

It's not my fault you're so fast out of the gate but lack staying power.

Have Fun, RT - or - This Will Break the Board
 

Like I said . . .

Good Lord, no, he is not infallible, but it is relevant because it suggests that there are good policy reasons to take basically the position I do -- or that, at least, a number of professionals in charge of running our foreign policy seem to think so.

So, you are "indulging" me. You think I have enjoyed this? This whole exchange is a prime example of why I rarely bother to try to engage in extended discussions on these boards. It is not worth the time and effort. If I had Hank's sense of the absurd, I'd try dada too.

Sebby -- you have created a persona on these Boards whose principal concerns seem to be, in no particular order: (a) the quality of your Scotch, (b) the purity of your blow; (c) the size of your bank account; and (d) busting your nut.

You strike your cynical, world-weary, elitist dillettante pose and post a lot of wild, hyperbolic shit in a wanna-be gonzo style. You are occasionally funny, and not always wrong, but there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously on any issue more important than which drink to order.

On this argument specifically, you have repeatedly misstated my position, proudly and knowingly adhered to an absolutist rant, refused to admit the slightest possibility of error, called me names when I disagreed, and never, ever, bothered to address the substance of any concern I raised.

Forgive me if I'm not heart-broken that a man of your apparent intellect and acomplishment considers me a jackass.

S_A_M

Frenchy
 

You say this, Diane, but your last post -- the one about tactical reasons to lay low on the issue as part of a broader strategy -- expressed exactly some of the themes I put forward.

So was I right or wrong about that? Is your position a capitulation? Are you a coward and an appeaser?

S_A_M

Have Fun, RT
 

Would you, then, like to see an increase in pro-active groups making themselves heard about the true aspects of Islam? Do you think there will be a strong movement to, "take back the night" so to speak?

I'm not sure what was in their minds when the papers published what they did, but when I first saw the cartoon with the bomb on The Prophet's head, I thought of how Bin Laden speaks of the [violent] obligations of Muslims supposedly supported by Allah. Were the comics saying "Death to Muslims; we hate them; die?" I guess I also don't see that there is more hatred towards Muslims than there is towards non-Muslims. Not that there is a way to measure that.

I guess I would ask the same question I did in the beginning of the post. What's the solution - who will do the chastising? What would be most effective? Don't you think it would be most effective for followers of Islam to criticize those who hijack the religion for violent purposes?

Frenchy
 

The posts you chimed in on only had to do with the governments of the papers which published the comics. I never once criticized US papers for not running the cartoons. (If our government had said the European governments should have censored the papers, I'd have jumped in.) So no. I am neither coward nor appeaser. (I am, though, laughing at how nobody seemed interested in the topic until I posted a picture of the Baby Jesus Butt Plug).

Yeah Yeah, Triple Post, whatever
 

Okoay, I know you are talking to Sebby here, but....let me just say that you are one of those posters with whom I agree with over 80% of the time. You seem flabbergasted that everyone thinks your arguments sucked. If you feel so strongly about this, you really should go back and re-read the original posts, and then your reactions to them. Maybe some of the things you meant to say didn't come out the way you intended.

Frenchy
 

BLASPHEMOUS!!!!

Have Fun, RT
 

Sorry Ty but this statement doesn't pass the smell test. You really don't understand why Christians would be offended by seeing their savior (or their saviors mother) covered in urine or feces? You think it more extreme ("a little different") that the Prophet is just depicted than where the Christian savior is depicted in urine or feces? Give me a break.


The following also does not pass the smell test:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
To claim your attitude towards a bunch or born-agains burning up Arkansas for Piss-Christ would be the same as your support of these burners is silly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Posted by Ty:
I'm not sure what this sentence means.

Are you really this slow? Do you not understand what this means? I didn't even have to read the prior post Hanks post referenced to know exactly what it means. Are you really going to stand by your statement you don't know what it means or are you going to acknoledge you just don't want to answer it.

Have Fun, RT
 

I think you'll find that the standard definition of blasphemy is broadly stated as "expressing disrespect for God or for something sacred" or, alternately, "the act of depriving something of its sacred character". Some would interpret floating a crucifix in urine, or hurling elephant dung on an image of Mary to be disrespectful of something sacred. (I find the images interesting and don't care if they are or are not blasphemous, but you asked...)

Have Fun, RT
 

You don't think a political cartoon depicting many muslims inclination torwards violence has no merit. Is this not a current issue? You don't think a cartoon depicting a bunch of suicide bombers lining up in heaven for virgins does not have merit? These seem to be standard political cartoon fare. Do you not like political cartoons? Do you not think political cartoons have merit? Do you think they have no place in political discourse?

You should stop trying to characterize what people say. It is never your goal to accurately convey what is being said, but to twist what is being said to support your specious arguments. The point everyone is trying to make is that the effect of outlawing political speech is pretty much the same as people not expressing political speech out of fear. When you say it was not "prudent" to print these, you are also saying that the consequences of such political speech could be violence, so such speech should be avoided.

In Germany in the twenties there was free speech, but much of this speech was avoided because of fear of reprisal. The main argument for not printing these cartoons is fear of reprisal.

People on this board are saying when someone is trying to squelch free speech through intimidation, no matter what the speech is, it should be repeated to show that such intimidation is not tolerated and will not succeed in our society. You seem to be arguing that we should let the intimidators succeed in their goal of intimidation.

The point is not to stick it in their eye, but to show that intimidation will not work when trying to squelch free speech in the west.

Have Fun, RT
 

You really think political cartoons, or social commentary cartoons have no purpose? Do you really thing the points these cartoons were trying to make have no place in the public discourse? Do you think the point of these cartoons could be as effective if their meassage was just written as opposed to conveying the message in cartoon form?

Have Fun, RT
 

Concur.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/ima..._cartoon_7.jpg

Also, here is another that the JP paper in Denmark apparently left out of the original 12. the 13th. I am not sure what the translation means. Something about Muhammed being a paedofile, whatever that is. Probably another word for holy.


http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger40.jpg

Have Fun, RT
 

I don't think you are trying very hard to understand what I am saying. Or, you are putting words into my mouth for fun.

I understand why (some) Christians take offense. But it doesn't have to do with Christian doctrine, so far as I know. Want to cite chapter and verse to me?

Apparently.

I don't recall saying anything about Arkansans.

Yes, and no.

Have Fun, RT
 

One turns on Koranic doctrine, the other turns on Merriam-Webster -- that was my point. They are different in that way.

Have Fun, RT
 

Not "a." That one.

Turns out, yes.

That question is about as good as asking whether a painting of a woman has merit? Are we talking about the Mona Lisa? There are plenty of paintings of women that aren't hanging in the Louvre.

No, I do like political cartoons. No, I do think many political cartoons have merit. No, I think they have some place in political discourse.

Well, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

No, that's actually not what I was saying. Go back and read it again.

Is there some faction in the Danish legislature that wants to ban political cartoons? If so, I agree that that would be wrong.

No, the main argument was that they are offensive to people.

If that was the point of running the cartoons the very first time, I missed it. Some Danish editor had clairvoyance, and knew that if he ran these cartoons, people would get agitated and some would threaten violence, and -- knowing that -- he decided that failing to run the cartoons would be bowing to the threat of future violence. No intimidation!

Have Fun, RT
 

As Tom Toles and G.B. Trudeau are my witnesses, no, I do not think that.

Did you really drink so much Colt .45 and peach schnapps tonight that that's what you think I was trying to say?

I don't recall saying that, either. Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you?

I apologize to anyone whose God I just blasphemed.

As to those particular cartoons, yes, because I think they are underwhelming examples of the craft.

Have Fun, RT
 

OK, Spanky: You're the editor of a Danish newspaper. Do you run this cartoon, knowing that it will offend a great many people but steadfast in your convinction that you will not be intimidated? Or not?

Have Fun, RT
 

Hindus eating cows in cartoons -- funny, or not so much? Open question. It just seems like something like that, or depicting Mohammed, or even piss christ or whatever that was, is way, way more intended to offend and inflame than anything else.

Which seems really stupid, in light of the US (and much of Western Europe) trying to get things stabilized in the ME.

But, whatever. Yeah, I guess they had the right to run the cartoon. No, I don't think it was a good idea, and I can't really support it.

The funding of the piss christ guy seems distinguishable because I highly doubt that his grant application said "I'm going to immerse a crucifix in urine" and I think it's fair not to give money to him after that.

My $0.02, for anyone not ignoring.

And, it seems like the whole mohammed thing is more like depicting Colin Powell and Michael Jordan and Jesse Jackson and Coretta King as Uncle (or Aunt) Tom(asina)s.

I mean, shit, it seems like the bomb in the headdress would be more like a statement about Islam self-destructing than anything else.

Have Fun, RT
 

I understand exactly what you are saying. You are saying that because portraying Mohammed is proscribed by the Koran, but portraying Christ on the Cross submerged in urine (or an image of Mary covered in feces) is not directly proscribed by the Bible (so not I can't cite you a verse) that the portrayal of Mohammed is somehow a higher level offense.

In other words for something to be blasphemous or offensive it has to be specified as such in a holy text. That is absurd. Does Christianity not have sacred ideas, relics or symbols? Isn't it obvious that disrespect of such ideas, relics or symbols will offend most Christians. Do you need a specific doctrine or passage in a religious text to identify an activity as truly disrepectful or blasphemous to a religion? Of course not.

Saying that Mary is not a Virgin is blasphemy to many Christians. I don't need a passage form the bible to know that. Here is one definition of blasphemy: "An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct."

Any moron could tell you that submerging Christ in urine would be highly offensive to most Christians and would be considered blasphemous to most Christians. Five hundrede years ago such an act would probably gotten you executed in most Christian countrys.

Just because the Bible does not proscribe dipping Jesus in Urine does not mean that one should assume that such an act is somehow less provacative, or less of a stab in the eye, than the portrayal of Mohammed.

You are probably the first and the last person to make such a ridiculous argument.

Have Fun, RT
 

My guess is that you were the only person posting to this board that didn't know what he was saying.


Whether you said anything about Arkansas in no way would hinder you in understanding what he was saying or hinder you from being able to answer his assertion.


It is just Yes. I understood what he was saying and everyone else did. If people in Alabama had started rioting and burning everything in site because of the Christ in Urine dispaly you would be freaking out and saying that the media and free speech should not be cowed and intimidated by these thugs and that pictures of the "art" should continued to be displayed to show that these ruffians can't intimidate people from exercising their free speech in this country.

Have Fun, RT
 

I wouldn't have printed it originally, but once people started trying to intimidate newspapers from printing such material I think it is important to print. Just like those other papers in Europe did. I think those other papers reprinting those cartoons was a brave act and I applaud them and I find it pathetic that so many people can't appreciate their principled stand.

I did not think the Christ in Urine or the Mary covered in Feces had any artistic value, but once people started protesting them I wanted every paper to print pictures of them.

I heard that the last Temptation of Christ was not a good movie, but once people started banning it and demonstrating outside the movie houses I made a point of going to see it in the theaters. I was told that I would not like the "Passion" but I went to see it once people started demonstrating against it.

A Question For PLF (who doesn't happen to follow this board)
 

The fact that there were violent protests to a cartoon that mocked the violent reputation of Muslims: Ironic or No?

TIA.

Ps. I have no interest in participating in (or reading, really, if you must know) the great cartoon debate going on here, but thanks for asking.

Have Fun, RT
 

This just makes you sound like a bit of a sucker. Did you know that the owner of the Utah Jazz has refused to allow Brokeback Mountain to play in his movie theaters? It threatens to turn all those virile Utah cowboys into pink triangle-toting queers, I hear.

Also Hollywood would like for you to know that Tom Cruise has a dangerous anti-antidepressent stance. There may be some sort of protest led by Brooke Shields on opening day of Mission Impossible III this summer (rumor has it he'll be pelted with little purple pills while standing on the red carpet). Go see it!

Have Fun, RT
 

Sllllooooowwww down Spank. Let's see if we can get Ty to commit to being a strict constructionist. That we can use later.

A Question For PLF (who doesn't happen to follow this board)
 

2. This has to be one of the least interesting political and moral issues to get this much play (on the news, not here) in some time. Some goofy cartoons provided the impetus for the release of pent-up anger in the muslim world for perceived western abuses against muslims. It could just as easily have been a muslim served fries dipped in pig tallow in East St. Louis.

while we're at it, caption this pic:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...9memo184.1.jpg

A Question For PLF (who doesn't happen to follow this board)
 

When I lived in DC there was an incident at an au bon Pain. a muslim woman ordered a Chef's salad- the menu didn't say it would include ham. when she got it she asked them to make her a new one w/o ham. the manager refused and told her to pick the ham off if she didn't want it. she had to pay for it. Small article in the WP about 1 pissed off woman- no burned buildings. Times change, and I don't think the manager would do the same today (hypo manager- the specific one might do the same thing).

mostly I agree with Fringey that the cartoons smack more of pickaninnie racist depictions than anything. the "Western" reaction to such racism is to boycott the publication and immediately think less of those who buy it (while secretely snickering at a funny one).

The riots aren't centered in the European countries, which is at least sort of positive as to european muslims being more integrated into those societies, but what I think it really shows is how far apart we are from the ME world. As to Ty's point that the Cartoons were meant only to enflame and that's what makes them bad, what is the readership of the Danish newspaper in Afghanistan?

I just see it all as a statement that we are heading into endless conflict. Before we could kid ourselves that if only Israel/Pali settled down we could all get on the same page and not have to worry about working in really tall buildings anymore. this is the first time i can remember where it's clear that leaving the ME alone isn't enough. The extremes want to control what we do here.

A Question For PLF (who doesn't happen to follow this board)
 

Top-40 answer:

(i assume this is from the king funeral)
pssst.....hey, does Laura LET you go "to the back of the bus?" know what i mean?

more obscure answer:

pssst....Heard she suck a good dick, and can hook a steak up

Have Fun, RT
 

oh N.C.S. Stop!
smarter men are talking here.
pond too deep to swim.

Have Fun, RT
 

I am not assuming anything. I am a Christian, and I'm telling you what I think. I haven't said others Christians aren't offended, or shouldn't be offended.

I agree with your point about how people would have reacted 500 years ago. And yet that's not true today. That change, it seems to me, tells you something.

Have Fun, RT
 

Many people -- including you -- are just being dense when you keep throwing "free speech" in my face here. I am all for free speech. I do not think the Danish government should be able to prevent Danish newspapers from running offensive cartoons. And I would think that there is a problem in the Danish newspaper market if Danish Muslims had the economic clout to ensure that no Danish newspapers articulated certain ideas.

This tactic of hypothesizing some situation, telling me how I would respond, and then telling me why I would be wrong is just dumb and lazy. Stick to what I've actually said. You have a hard enough time with that.

Yeah Yeah, Triple Post, whatever
 

Maybe so. Gotta say that I really don't feel like going back and reviewing it all, though.

I did change my argument & add new ones about halfway through the string. Maybe those didn't take.

S_A_M

Frenchy
 

Technically not, which I suppose is Ty's argument about the "art".

That said, I shudder to imagine the mental state of anyone who'd like to shove the image of an infant up their rear.

S_A_M

Have Fun, RT
 

No. They are too busy protesting a couple of cartoons, printed thousands of miles from where most of those protesting live.

Have Fun, RT
 

Fuck.



Fuck, fuck, fuck.





Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck.


I hate it when I agree with Spanky.

Have Fun, RT
 

Well, this may not be entirely correct.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110007934

Have Fun, RT
 

Not the cartoon in the Danish newspaper -- the "cartoon" in the post you just responded to.