dyslexia wrote:I guess I am on the wrong end of this issue but I do think "provocation" is useful in society, especially complex society. Provocation can be a very effective tool to sorting out issues and the basis for those issues. I don not follow the european idea of "hate speech" and do favor "legal" provocation. (Diane thinks I'm off the deep end.) so it goes.
I still am trying to figure out the reaction to the "offence". This, all over a bloody cartoon?
Anon
Lord Ellpus wrote:nimh wrote:muslim1 wrote:Quote:
Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons
Interesting...
Hah! Yes, indeed ..
No matter how stupid and outrageous (and to us, ununderstandable) the reaction to this affair in the Muslim world has been, it's definitely also sure that the Jyllands Posten folks were no innocent lambs ... they were out to provoke, and that in a country, governed by a coalition relying on the far right, where Muslims and immigrants have already be taking blow after blow...
Not having seen the Jesus cartoons, I am not able to comment using fact.
It may be that they were not seen as a worthy "political comment" type of cartoon, but were merely trying to be outrageous for the sake of being outrageous, as opposed to being presented to illuminate a relevant political problem.
Political and religious "comment" cartoons have been used for the purpose of highlighting certain relevant situations for a couple of centuries, methinks.
Used in the free world, that is.
A simple "comment" cartoon, can make a point more effectively than a thousand words, in many cases.
However, if it is the case that this rag chose not to publish for fear of offending christians, then they are showing double standards and should be exposed for what they are.
And the people who riot and kill those who don't agree with them? Okay with you?
Cliff Hanger wrote:
Righto. Same with Denmark-- government and press are separate. Not a government's issue. In Islam, however...oh, you already know this.
The Church of Denmark (Danish:Den Danske Folkekirke) is the state church - atheists, Muslims, and other religious movements pay to the church because it is a part of the government's budget :wink:
i understand that the rolling stones were 'censored' at the superbowl. one might argue that it was a 'business' decision, and not 'government' censorship - the outcome was the same : censorship.
howard stern's show has also been censored in the past; so now he has gone to pay-radio and can say whatever his sponsors allow him to say.
again, isn't it all somewhat similar ? it's o.k. for a corporation to censor a performance (Sone might call it 'art' ?) and it's considered their right to do so.
----------------------------------------------------------
i don't like censorship, but i like responsible persons/corporations to act in a way that censorship is not necessary.
of course, what i'm looking for is not on the agenda.
----------------------------------------------------------
from'reuters news' :
Rolling Stones say censors "ridiculous"
Tue Feb 7, 2006 3:56 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Rolling Stones considered the decision to censor two of their songs during the U.S. Super Bowl halftime show on Sunday "ridiculous" and unnecessary, a representative for the band said on Tuesday.
Stones spokeswoman Fran Curtis took issue with a comment by a National Football League spokesman on Monday that the band was not only aware of the plan to lower the volume on Mick Jagger's microphone for two lines but also "fine with it."
Producers of the top rated U.S. television event of the year have been cautious about causing offense ever since Janet Jackson bared her breast during her act in 2004 in a now famous "wardrobe malfunction."
During the Rolling Stones' act on Sunday, in the song "Start Me Up," the line "you make a dead man come" was cut short and a barnyard reference to "cocks" in the new song "Rough Justice" also disappeared.
"The Rolling Stones were aware of our plan which was to simply lower the volume on his microphone at those two appropriate moments," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told Reuters on Monday. "We had agreed to that plan earlier in the week. The Stones were aware of it and they were fine with it."
But the Stone's representative said the members of the band were far from happy with the decision to cut the lines on the broadcast which was carried by ABC.
"The Rolling Stones thought the censorship of their songs by the NFL/ABC was absolutely ridiculous and completely unnecessary," Curtis said, adding that they were aware of the plan before the show.
Asked whether the Stones had felt strongly enough to take any action, such as pulling out of the show, she said: "The band did the songs they were supposed to do and they sang all the words."
"There were many many conversations back and forth and the band clearly was not happy about it."
ABC Sports has said any alteration of the lyrics was done by the NFL and its production company.
Brandon9000 wrote:And the people who riot and kill those who don't agree with them? Okay with you?
Brandon, who are you talking to and what are you talking about?
Both Lord Ellpus and I have already ad nauseam talked about how those who riot and burn embassies and kill are not okay (to say the least).
I dont even get where you are coming from? Did you even read the posts you replied to? Or any of the others of either of us?
nimh wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:And the people who riot and kill those who don't agree with them? Okay with you?
Brandon, who are you talking to and what are you talking about?
Both Lord Ellpus and I have already ad nauseam talked about how those who riot and burn embassies and kill are not okay (to say the least).
I dont even get where you are coming from? Did you even read the posts you replied to? Or any of the others of either of us?
Nimh,
Try not to work too hard to make sense out of most of what Brandon and some of his buddies say because it's just not possible!
Anon
I'll try one more time.
Anyone who has offered censure of the Danish paper feel free to answer.
Why were they stupid? Just a simple sentence or two will do.
I'll just have to cite why this is so important to me, and move on.
Censure DOES erode freedom of expression. It just does.
FreeDucks' analogy SLAYS me. And, it is an appropriate one.
A woman dresses provocatively.
She's raped.
I want to fight those who say she deserved it.
This is, in effect, what the "stupid" charge against Jyllands-Posten is. If you put any censure on them due to the response, you are eroding freedom.
Either the paper bears some level of responsibility--or they bear NO level of responsibility. The censure is blame--whether you've made that connection or not. It just is.
When my daughter totalled our car, and I walked up to the accident, I did nothing but hug her and thank God she was ok. She apologized and cried, thinking she'd done something wrong. I was amazed she'd think I could possibly blame for any aspect of what happened. It was rainy, it was dark, it was a back road, it was a sharp turn.
Could it be said she shouldn't have been driving in the rain, could something be said to cast blame on her? Something awful did happen. It cost us dearly. But, she wasn't to blame. At all.
Criticising Jyllands-Posten is blame. Either they are wrong--and are criticised----or they are blameless, and completely above criticism.
Do you blame them--or are they completely blameless? If they are blameless, explain why they were stupid.
(So glad for you, Ellpus)
(and The Dys)
I agree with Lash - Jyllands-Posten is blameless. I do think the cartoon was unnecessary, irresponsible and proivocative. Yet, I agree that they are blameless and that any kind of censure is wrong.
There are similar stories all around the world:
http://www.indolink.com/News/NRI/news_050103-201038.php
(However, Ganesha's face on women's tank tops are deemed acceptable
..)
There have been such protests from people of all religions...Christians, Muslims, Hindus....The difference is that muslims *always* protest with *least* restraint....and require just the slightest provocation to become violent...I agree with Lash's analogy....(btw, that might explain why muslims like to dress their women in a burkha)..
Bless you. I feel like the voice crying in the wilderness.
Welcome, btw.
sakhi
"...that might explain why muslims like to dress their women in a burkha..."
Well put....The attitude of Muslim men to woman is one involving possession. On a recent TV programme a Muslim argued "why do you let your woman wear short skirts ?
Brandon9000 wrote:Lord Ellpus wrote:nimh wrote:muslim1 wrote:Quote:
Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons
Interesting...
Hah! Yes, indeed ..
No matter how stupid and outrageous (and to us, ununderstandable) the reaction to this affair in the Muslim world has been, it's definitely also sure that the Jyllands Posten folks were no innocent lambs ... they were out to provoke, and that in a country, governed by a coalition relying on the far right, where Muslims and immigrants have already be taking blow after blow...
Not having seen the Jesus cartoons, I am not able to comment using fact.
It may be that they were not seen as a worthy "political comment" type of cartoon, but were merely trying to be outrageous for the sake of being outrageous, as opposed to being presented to illuminate a relevant political problem.
Political and religious "comment" cartoons have been used for the purpose of highlighting certain relevant situations for a couple of centuries, methinks.
Used in the free world, that is.
A simple "comment" cartoon, can make a point more effectively than a thousand words, in many cases.
However, if it is the case that this rag chose not to publish for fear of offending christians, then they are showing double standards and should be exposed for what they are.
And the people who riot and kill those who don't agree with them? Okay with you?
Ok...so I see that it WAS a question for me, and Brandon had obviously just jumped into the thread without reading what had already been said.
I therefore refer you to my earlier post, on page 23.....
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=68375&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=220
....and this is why I say that the practising muslims (specifically in the UK, is what I am talking about), need to put their house in order, throw out the recruiters and stamp down hard on their fanatics.
...."Abu Hamza has been blamed for radicalising Muslims who prayed at Finsbury Park Mosque, in north London, where he was imam until 2003.
A police search of the MOSQUE that year led to the discovery of forged passports, CS gas, knives and guns and it was closed down."
Not for even one minute, could I imagine that this sort of stuff would be found in a British christian church, or jewish synagogue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4691958.stm
nimh wrote:muslim1 wrote:Quote:
Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons
Interesting...
Hah! Yes, indeed ..
No matter how stupid and outrageous (and to us, ununderstandable) the reaction to this affair in the Muslim world has been, it's definitely also sure that the Jyllands Posten folks were no innocent lambs ... they were out to provoke, and that in a country, governed by a coalition relying on the far right, where Muslims and immigrants have already be taking blow after blow...
See this post
I think the article raised legitimate concerns.
thanks for that Einherjar. Fascinating to see all those images of Mohammed causing little if any offense in the past. But now of course we can expect various museums and art galleries around the world to be trashed.
[I particularly like the advert for meat extract]
My take on all this is pretty simple. Just because radical islam is a product of the west, it doesnt mean islam has any merit.
The radical iman Hamza who has just been gaoled here kept the 10 volume Encyclopedia of Afghani Jihad in his study. Where did he get it from? Who published this terror manual?
nimh wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:And the people who riot and kill those who don't agree with them? Okay with you?
Brandon, who are you talking to and what are you talking about?
Both Lord Ellpus and I have already ad nauseam talked about how those who riot and burn embassies and kill are not okay (to say the least).
I dont even get where you are coming from? Did you even read the posts you replied to? Or any of the others of either of us?
Normally I do, but this was simply a repost of a much earlier post to correct a technical problem.
Obviously, I am responding to Lord Ellpus, and I think it is immensely significant that his first post criticized only the Danes, and made no mention whatsoever of the inappropriateness of violent rioting as a result.
Danish pastries are re-named "Mohammedan pastry" in some Islamic countries I've heard .... where did I hear similar before ....
Walter, would you like some " Freedom Fries" with you sausage?
Living in Old Europe, I'm not allowed to eat them.
