Reply
Fri 3 Feb, 2006 07:10 am
This is a continuation of
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37997
That topic will not be unlocked; please use this one instead. Thank you.
The cartoon McG posted reminded me. . .
The wacky, sometimes nutty, but always entertaining and interesting former Congressman Bob Dornan substituted for Michael Savage on the radio last night and was running in the background while I was working. He gave a commentary that caught my interest re the Muslim faith, and I started listening. This is really paraphrased, but the gist of it is:
The Old Testament is a fascinating collection of manuscripts including poetry, allegory, metaphor, symbolism, what is believed to be prophecy, teachings, and smatterings of history of the Hebrew people, forerunners of the modern Jew. Some of the accounts related are pretty bloody and pretty unacceptable by 21st Century standards, and the anti-relgious are fond of pointing to them to discredit the faith in general.
Modern Jews, however, no longer follow those questionable practices of the Old Testament and neither teach them nor condone them. They have evolved over these thousands of years into a peaceful people rooted in their history, but with different values than was apparently the case in the beginning. They are now modern Jews.
Modern Hindus are not the militant, aggressive, intolerant people they once were. They have joined the world as a peaceful people with not a perfect, but improving track record on human rights. They are now mostly modern Hindus.
And Christianity has its own checkered past including a corrupt papacy and monarchy, political crusades, the Inquisition, little theocracies, and witchburnings, and the anti-religious like to point to that as evidence of how wicked religion is. But modern Christians no longer practice nor condone such practices and are rather at the forefront of relieving suffering and improving the lot of peoples of all faiths everywhere. They are now modern Christians.
Likewise, most Muslim people reject the more aggressive and murderous passages of the Qu'ran and prefer to live their lives productively and at peace with their neighbors. They are the modern Islam.
The guy with the bomb in his bonnet represents that much smaller chunk of Islam that hasn't yet caught up with modern ideals, but it isn't fair to pin this on Mohammed when most Muslims wouild not condone it. I think he is an imposter--what Ican defines as a 'malignancy'--and nobody is going to care much if he is just eliminated from the equation.
But then I believe that co-existing with terrorists is not acceptable, and thus I don't accept it as inevitable. I also don't think it will just go away if left alone.
Muslims have no sense of humor...
I can sympathize with Muslims who feel that their prophet is being ridiculed and disrespected. However, to riot over this seems over-reacting and not-helpful.
Christians have had our icons disparaged as well, the crucifix in urine comes to mind, any number of movies also. Other religions as well, recall the destruction of the Afghan Buddhas by the Taliban. But I don't recollect any riots being used to voice our displeasure over the disrespect.
I think many Muslims have come to the conclusion that their most effective (and rewarding) political tactic is violence. Hence, any slight, whether political, economical, or religious is countered with riots, bombings, or terrorism. As long as that perception is strengthened, by capitulation to the violence, we will continue to see Islamic violence, I'm afraid.
Well, it's not like the terrorists need an excuse to commit terrorism. If we don't insult their leaders or the Qu'ran or something else, do you honestly think they'll fold up their tents and become model citizens of the world?
No, they probably wouldn't. On the other hand, it might be helpful not to give fanatical leaders yet another argument they can use to recruit more followers and, ultimately, more terrorists.
Having said that, I don't think that a cartoon is such an argument whatsoever.
I guess it's the same problem as with blackmail. If people around the world notice that riots and murders are all it takes to make a democracy will accomodate them, we will see more of it in non-democratic countries. It's not just in Islamic countries, it could be Cuba or Belarus, too.
Thomas - I'm curious about the laws in Germany. Would the pictures that the NYTimes ran of that artist that depicted crufixes in jars of urine have been allowed to be printed in the German newspapers?
Sure that would have been allowed. Why shouldn't it?
old europe wrote:No, they probably wouldn't. On the other hand, it might be helpful not to give fanatical leaders yet another argument they can use to recruit more followers and, ultimately, more terrorists.
Having said that, I don't think that a cartoon is such an argument whatsoever.
The cartoon JW posted makes a rather profound point, however. Radical Islamofacist extremists take offense at just about anything we Westerners say, do, think, or suggest. But they take what they consider to be weakness as encouragement to step up their efforts.
So, the bottom line is, there is no tactic one can use to appease or pacify terrorists.
Foxfyre wrote:Radical Islamofacist extremists take offense at just about anything we Westerners say, do, think, or suggest.
That's probably quite true. Nevertheless, in this case, it's not only the "Radical Islamofacist extremists" who take offense. Because even though the prohibition to depict
anything like the Quran mandates has been overcome by a considerable number of Muslims doesn't mean that they can't be offended by a derogative depiction of the Prophet.
It's a rule that is held very dear by a lot of them. Just as is "freedom of speech" by us Westerners.
old europe wrote:Sure that would have been allowed. Why shouldn't it?
As I said, I was just curious - mainly as to whether Germany's anti-blasphemy laws were similar to those in France. I remember when a fashion ad that made fun of a painting of "The Last Supper" was banned in France, when (I think) some bishops complained.
Although some individual states may have blasphemy laws on the books here in the U.S., there's no way, I don't think, that a similar ad could have been banned here.
This is certainly interesting...
Quote:A Muslim religious organisation in Denmark, Islamisk Trossamfund, has brought attention to the cartoons during a tour of the Middle-East, and has allegedly represented that Muslims in Denmark have been exposed to much more overtly offensive images.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-43>[45] However, these additional images,
none of which had previously been published by any mainsteam media outlet, would be considered deliberately profane and obscene by many non-Muslims.image, image, image. On February 1 BBC World aired a story showing one of these three images, and incorrectly claimed that it had been published in Jyllands-Posten. <SUP class=reference id=_ref-44>[46]
Akhmad Akkari, spokesman of the Danish Muslim organisations which organised the tour,
claimed to be unaware of the origin of the three pictures, claiming that they had been sent be unknown persons to Muslims in Denmark. Arkkari purported to justify the use of the three drawings as providing "insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims." However, when Akkari was asked if the Muslims who had received these pictures could be interviewed,
Akkari refused to reveal their identities.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-45>[47]
[...]
In response to Danish Muslims who criticised Denmark in Arab territories, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said, "I am speechless that those people, whom we have given the right to live in Denmark and where they freely have chosen to stay, are now touring Arab countries and inciting antipathy towards Denmark and the Danish people"<SUP class=reference id=_ref-50>[52].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons
So, if I'm reading this correctly - this Akkari goes to the ME, taking
not the cartoons that were published, but three
much more vile cartoons and proceeds to whip up the crowds.
Hmmmm.
JustWonders wrote:Thomas - I'm curious about the laws in Germany. Would the pictures that the NYTimes ran of that artist that depicted crufixes in jars of urine have been allowed to be printed in the German newspapers?
I haven't researched the caselaw myself, as there is nothing like a German Findlaw. That said, I am confident that the answer is `yes but'. On the one hand, the pictures would (a) be protected by the German constitution. Ariticle 5, in particular, states in relevant part:
- Everyone has the right, to freely articulate his opinion in words, pictures, and films, and to inform himself from generally accessible sources. The freedom of the press and the freedom of reporting are guaranteed. No censorship will occur.
- These rights find their limits in the regulations of general laws, the regulations for the protection of the youth, and the right to personal dignity.
There have been a lot of blasphemy cases under that article, and as best I remember, our Constitutional Court has held constitutional some artwork comparable to what you say the
New York Times has published.
On the other hand, the pictures you describe would surely violate the
Pressecodex, a voluntary code of honor that the most of the German press has imposed upon itself.
- Publications in writing and pictures that can substantially offend a group of persons' moral and religious sentiments in form and content, are incompatible with journalistic responsibility.
So in sum, as I said, the answer is `yes but'.
JustWonders wrote:old europe wrote:Sure that would have been allowed. Why shouldn't it?
As I said, I was just curious - mainly as to whether Germany's anti-blasphemy laws were similar to those in France. I remember when a fashion ad that made fun of a painting of "The Last Supper" was banned in France, when (I think) some bishops complained.
Although some individual states may have blasphemy laws on the books here in the U.S., there's no way, I don't think, that a similar ad could have been banned here.
As far as I'm aware, we don't have any "anti-blasphemy laws" in place at all!
We do have a law about the "Insulting of Faiths, Religious Societies and Organizations Dedicated to a Philosophy of Life", but I don't think it can be read as an anti-blasphemy law. It goes more along the lines of maintaining the public peace. Like not shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, yaknow....
Oh, I see Thomas has already answered this..... Yes, sums it up, I'd say.
JustWonders wrote:Thomas - I'm curious about the laws in Germany. Would the pictures that the NYTimes ran of that artist that depicted crufixes in jars of urine have been allowed to be printed in the German newspapers?
Actually, the consrevative daily "Die Welt" printed some of thiose cartoons yesterday (don't read - so I must rely on media reports).
We talked about this on the
Blasphemy abit (well, I quoted the relevant section from the German Criminal Law).
What was already said before: we don't have a blashemy law anymore since ... 1969 if I'm not totally wrong. (At least, there was none when I started studying law in 1971 :wink: .)
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace