Cartoon Power: Danish newspaper and cartoons of Muhammad

[Zlatko Waterman]

The power of the cartoon! The story can be read here:




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02720.html

rather blurry, lo-res versions of some of the cartoons can be seen here:

http://blog.newspaperindex.com/2005/12/ ... en-racism/


which site also contains links to discussion of the cartoons.


--Z

[firsty]

i love shit like this.

first of all, if someone draws a picture of something that offends me, who exactly should i be mad at, and what for? should i be mad that someone thinks, for instance, that Jesus was a jerk? i mean, if i think Jesus was a cool guy, and someone draws a picture of Him giving someone the finger, then what can i do? well, that guy's going to HELL. but should i fucking burn down his house?

if someone draws a picture of buddha with his finger up his ass, should buddhist monks start rioting? why would they riot? to protest what they see as the existence of a jackass with a pen and an artboard?

SOMEONE THINKS ISLAM IS VIOLENT! WE MUST BURN THINGS TO SHOW THEM THAT WE ARE ANGRY! FUCK YOU, YOU CARTOONIST! FUCK YOU, MR NEWSPAPER MAN! HA HA! WE WILL SHOW YOU THAT WE VALUE OUR RELIGION BY BURNING DOWN BUILDINGS!

guess what, now you're an ARSON. and even more people think you're an asshole. a violent asshole.

sweet.

[stilltrucking]

U.S. supports Muslim ire on cartoons

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... H2TSD1.DTL

Of course. us theocracies have got to stick together.
.


This bit is from the Washington Post article

Sethi and others see a double standard at work. "People who question some of the facts of the Holocaust are ostracized; most publishers are so sensitive they won't even get into the argument," Sethi said. "A degree of censorship is imposed that is not articulated in this case."

I just don't get Mr. Sethi's point.

I wonder how many people will die in the riots?

[Arcadia]

I always found cartoons as a way of resistance and creative-power through humor. Cartoons and songs lyrics were an important way to say things here against the dictadura.
But teniendo en cuenta the representation-thing among muslims maybe mr. Alexandre Adler is right. And the Mahoma cartoons aren´t also very sutil... and sad news: there is a war... and US government is against Mahoma images but is for war...

[Marksman45]

There's been a big discussion about this on another website I go to.

One of the members there is a Muslim. He doesn't support the actions Muslims have been taking, but he pointed out *why* they're so pissed.
Apparently (according to this guy on that other site) Islam dictates that if someone insults or slanders Muhammed (or Allah or Jesus or Moses even), they are to be killed. This gives rise to an interesting situation where if someone insults Muhammed and <i>isn't</i> killed, then Muslims have broken one of their rules.


This aforementioned discussion also featured people saying that the cartoons shouldn't have been published, that it's just foolish and rude to affront a religion and culture in that way.
This was countered with the argument that in the West, Free Speech is sacred. The cartoons were published to uphold a sacred principle.
It then becomes a conflict of the Western ideals of human rights & civilisation versus a religion that, when taken to the extreme, features some rather uncivilised tenets.

[microbe]

It has been done many times before without any furore. Take a look HERE

This is fun (remember it is parodying the extremists!)
Islam Karaoke....click play

Have a bash at drawing your very own prophet.
Draw Mohammed

[stilltrucking]

"But as to free speech," he remarked, "that is, of course, a bourgeois notion..." Lenin

Thanks microbe fascinating website. I was clicking through it and found this one
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/
Amazing.

[microbe]

What I find fascinating is there have been so many recent cartoons depicting Mohammed, including the high profile "South Park", without any problems, so what has happened this time? Is someone pulling the strings?

The South Park episode is here: http://www.scientomogy.com/south_park_scientology.php

[stilltrucking]

Coincidence?

[firsty]

i thought islam was the religion of peace.

are you serious that they believe they need to kill people who slander a prophet?

if thats the case, seriously, then i dont consider islam a religion. thats just fucked up.

i heard this morning that islamic clerics tried to get a meeting with the danish prime minister about the cartoons. when the pm declined, the clerics circulated the cartoons throughout the middle east, along with other images, very offensive, that had nothing to do with denmark or the original cartoons.

maybe the cartoon with the bomb in the turban wasnt a criticism, merely a suggestion.

[e_dog]

the idea presented above by Marksman, tho i don't know if he's endorsing it, that the West represents 'civilization' and the Islamic rage about insults to their prophet is 'uncivilized' is a facile notion.

rather these are several different strains of fundamental notions of law within civilization -- 1 one that upholds free speech -- those who support the legal right to publish criticism of even what others call sacred -- another position 2 that believes both idolatry and blashephemy to be an abominable sin -- which the authentic extremis Muslims are exemplifying but its a position not unknown to Christianity thruout history such as inquistions and attempts to suppress speech in Amnerica from time to time -- another position 3 that holds nothing sacred neither secular law nor religious and has no principles whatsoever -- the Bush adminitrartion and its warmongers -- and 4 those who will use anything that comes along as an excuse to vent their anger against the 'West' and to avenge the aggressive actions of group 3, and 5 those who are opportunistically exploiting group 4 -- the elite jihadists using the the Muslim masses -- for their own political ends, much like group 3 does with its troops. lets remember that the publications were released in September but all of a sudden its an issue.

[firsty]

1 one that upholds free speech -- those who support the legal right to publish criticism of even what others call sacred --

the right of free people to engage in free speech, in my opinion, MUST allow criticism of what others call sacred. because once we disallow those things, how do we then define what others define as sacred. i would say that free speech necessarily includes criticizing those things that others define as sacred. because all thats left after that is safe targets. free speech that is only allowed to criticize safe things is meaningless.

2 that believes both idolatry and blashephemy to be an abominable sin -- which the authentic extremis Muslims are exemplifying but its a position not unknown to Christianity thruout history such as inquistions and attempts to suppress speech in Amnerica from time to time --

if i criticize islam for doing things that christianity did or is doing, i'm not implicitly condoning those things that were done or are being done in the name of christianity. this particular argument is dealing with this particular issue. it's wrong for muslims or muslim extremist apologists to say that they can burn and pillage based on religious views simply because christians did it to them. also, abominable sins are not, in a civilized society, justification for vigilante behavior. if a person sins, God will judge him and punish him. if a religion decides that believers must carry out that punishment, then they have no place in civilized society.

3 that holds nothing sacred neither secular law nor religious and has no principles whatsoever -- the Bush adminitrartion and its warmongers

this matters how? again, the sins of group A do not justify the sins of group B. "nothing sacred" is an invalid argument, an invalid point of view. because if we're to be fair, all groups hold something sacred, and i'm having a hard time distinguishing, to be honest, the different between the self-serving sacred beliefs of extreme islam and the self-serving sacred beliefs of western imperialism.

4 those who will use anything that comes along as an excuse to vent their anger against the 'West' and to avenge the aggressive actions of

there you go.

5 those who are opportunistically exploiting group 4 -- the elite jihadists using the the Muslim masses -- for their own political ends, much like group 3 does with its troops. lets remember that the publications were released in September but all of a sudden its an issue.

exactly.

now i think we also come to the question of societal evolution. are we to explain away muslim protests by saying they are less civilized because of their methods and that they are justified in being less civil because they are somehow behind the times? i think it's time to say no to that argument. i think that it IS time to question these methods of protest. i think that these protests can accurately be described as uncivilized, immature and irrational. i have a hard time believing that islam condones these actions as an appropriate response to blasphemy. but if thats the case, then i would condemn islam as a religion. i cant fathom seeing islam as a civilized religion if this is the way that islam acts out its belief. but i suspect with great hope that this is not the case, that islam really doesnt condone this.

[Marksman45]

firsty: I don't know if it's true or not. That's what that Muslim guy said on that other site.

[e_dog]

i agree with some of what firsty says but not with the premise that religious fundamentalism is 'uncivilized' or 'not civilized enough.' my sympathies of course rest with free speech. but only a simplistic indeed quasi-religious faith in progress allows one to think 'civilization' and liberty are the same. the problem with extremists is that they are TOO emersed in civilization i.e. religiosity, capitalism, militarism. these are the products of civilization. civilization is always more or less fancy ways of killing or torturing others.

[firsty]

well, i dont think that religious fundamentalism is uncivilized. what i think is that protesting someone else's perceived sin that doesnt hurt anyone physicallyby burning buildings and endangering lives is fucking stupid, uncivilized, irrational crap. and i dont think that the violence is a product of religious fundamentalism or of islamic beliefs, but rather a product of uncivilized assholes. and i dont think that they are uncivilized because of their religion. i think they are uncivilized because of their society. to the extent that their society is dictated by their religion, and more importantly, to the extent that any uncivilized, backwards and irrational behavior is dictated by their religion, i say, their religion is shit.