T-shirt Vendor Profits from Mohammed Cartoon Conflict

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by The time lord
Guess what europeans want to make it policy for air hostesses not to wear crosses when flying to the Middle East in case it upsets them.


In many countries in the Middle East, their religion (Islam) is very closely tied to the law. If it is illegal to wear a cross in their country, we are obligated to obey their laws when we visit their country. If you must wear a cross, then don't visit a place where that practice is illegal.




posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Benevolent Heretic:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Somehow you're missing my very basic positions:
I support people to express themselves, even if I don't agree with their message.
I support people to disagree, be angry, be offended and protest in response.
I do not support physical response, such as burning buildings.

What about this is getting hung up here?



...which is why I think we have been splitting hairs, then, because I agree with everything you said....

But, I would add that it is not an attack on free speech to condemn unjust prejudice where you find it. We condemn racist speech all the time without calling into question first amendment rights.

Why are they being brought up now? Who benefits by making that the primary issue?

:shk:

EDIT:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Maybe you can change my mind.





I have a feeling my spoken words will be no more persuasive to you than my written ones...



[edit on 12-2-2006 by loam]



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
The wearing a cross part was to point out the T-shirt does not really do anything for me but if one has to make a point wear what you believe.

Even women like news reporters wear head scalfs. But if people want to make a point and wear this t-shirt I would substitute that idea for a cross to make a point.

Its a shame we have to respect their beliefs in our own country political system.
If they view the West the Jews and non belivers as second rate then we have the right to say theirs is too and pick their bad points. In what ever shape or form even in an art exhibition becasue art is about expression.

But what can we do offend a persons religion? If Europe make it a law against to express views on Islam then we are heading in thier direction and democracy in Iraq is heading in ours for a swap.

I believe that Islam is no better than Satanism and wish to express that and to wake up the world from this oppressed machine mowing our freedoms. But I can see why they behave this way they know no better they never have the chance to walk away from it and make their own free will decitions. I do not believe in amputating the hand for steeling, and people need human rights there.

[edit on 12-2-2006 by The time lord]



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
But, I would add that it is not an attack on free speech to condemn unjust prejudice where you find it. We condemn racist speech all the time without calling into question first amendment rights.


I think it's because we interpreted the picture differently. The 'racist speech' you speak of is clear. If someone says "all black people are criminals" I can go after that. It's clear what the speaker means.

This picture is not so clear (to me). I"m still not sure of the intended message.



Why are they being brought up now? Who benefits by making that the primary issue?


Exactly. Bush benefits. This cartoon was published in September. Why is it being brought up NOW, when it's vital that we Americans have at least a nasty reminder that it's possible that all Muslims are violent?



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Loam, if you haven't already, please read Wikipedia's entry on this issue, especially the "Debate about self-censorship" section. How this all started is very interesting.

Wiki



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think it's because we interpreted the picture differently. The 'racist speech' you speak of is clear. If someone says "all black people are criminals" I can go after that. It's clear what the speaker means.

This picture is not so clear (to me). I"m still not sure of the intended message.


Fair enough, but with all due respect, Benevolent, we have millions of Muslims pounding the pavement telling us that is how they see it. To them, the obvious interpretation is that "all Muslims are terrorists." ...which is worse than being called a criminal, I think.

Let me ask you, where did you get your interpretation of the image...honestly?

I find it difficult to imagine that by seeing an image of Mohammad with a bomb on his head one could reach the conclusion that the image was trying to convey a message on free speech.

Indeed, in the Wikipidia article you directed me to, it said that the Mohammad image was published with the following explanatory text in an Article entitled, "The face of Muhammad":



The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance in the present context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him.


Remember, this is language in advance of the controversy, not after it...

How does the publisher get "we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end"???? Are you freakin' kidding me??? How does SELF-SENSORSHIP lead to a slippery slope to anywhere???


Talk about putting logic on its head.... On the one hand the publisher argues in support of free speech, but on the other, insists on telling me how that free speech should be used.


And what is this doublespeak?



...it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance in the present context.


What context? Because there happen to be a few radical Muslims, it's OK to go insult them all???

Simply ridiculous. These guys are right up there with the rest of the guys in white hoods...


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Loam, if you haven't already, please read Wikipedia's entry on this issue, especially the "Debate about self-censorship" section. How this all started is very interesting.

Wiki


Because you mention it, I will also reprint that section as well:




Debate about self-censorship

On September 17, 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article under the headline "Dyb angst for kritik af islam"[8] ("Profound fear of criticism of Islam"). The article discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was initially unable to find an illustrator who was prepared to work with Bluitgen on his children's book Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv ("The Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad's life"). Three artists declined Bluitgen's proposal before an artist agreed to assist anonymously. According to Bluitgen:

One [artist declined], with reference to the murder in Amsterdam of the film director Theo van Gogh, while another [declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute in Copenhagen[8].

In October 2004, a lecturer at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen was assaulted by five assailants who opposed the lecturer's reading of the Qur'an to non-Muslims during a lecture[9].

The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence of self-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark, with other examples for similar reasons soon emerging. The comedian Frank Hvam declared that he did not dare satirise the Qur'an on television, while the translators of an essay collection critical of Islam also wished to remain anonymous due to concerns about violent reaction.



I think the specific criminal incidents are terrible. But these prior criminal acts do not provide justification for anyone to insult all Muslims.

Moreover, how justified is the fear these illustrators felt? Should I also be afraid of all blacks because of the numerous examples of black on white crime I could find? Would that justify me publishing an image of Martin Luther King raping a white woman and killing a baby?


I think not. I am not persuaded from my position...

One last thing... I noticed that, yet again, Wikipidea does not quite get things right. In the opening paragraphs, it states:




The Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League have demanded that the United Nations impose international sanctions upon Denmark.[3]



I looked at the footnote and followed the article that sentence is based upon.




Muslims seek UN resolution over Danish prophet cartoons

The Muslim world's two main political bodies have said they were seeking a UN resolution, backed by possible sanctions, to protect religions following the outcry caused by publication in Scandinavia of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad.

Organisation of the Islamic Conference secretary general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu told reporters in Cairo Sunday that the international body would "ask the UN general assembly to pass a resolution banning attacks on religious beliefs."

The deputy secretary general of the Arab League, Ahmed Ben Helli, confirmed that contacts were under way for such a proposal to be made to the United Nations.

"Consultations are currently taking place at the highest level between Arab countries and the OIC to ask the UN to adopt a binding resolution banning contempt of religious beliefs and providing for sanctions to be imposed on contravening countries or institutions," he said.



Where do you find in this article that the "Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League have demanded that the United Nations impose international sanctions upon Denmark"???

Their proposal in the UN is a prospective one.

Sloppy. :shk:

I did not check other items.


[edit on 12-2-2006 by loam]



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I can't handle this all tonight, but I'll do some.



Originally posted by loam
Let me ask you, where did you get your interpretation of the image...honestly?


"Honestly"? I don't speak any other way.


I got my interpretation from my head!


Item 1 - I have always hated how George Bush calls himself a Christian. My mother was a person I consider to be a true Christian. She never spoke negatively about anyone. She always looked for the best in people and brought that out. She had an endless amount of compassion and her religion was the center of her life, but she never pushed it on anyone.

So when he and his ilk say they're Christians, it makes me sick. He is hijacking the Christian religion and using it to pass his agenda.

Item 2 - Assuming for a moment that the people who ran airplanes into the WTC were indeed the Muslim extremists that we've been told they were, this whole Al Qaeda organization and their ilk are also hijacking the Muslim religion and using it to pass their agenda. I have some serious judgments about that. I have argued it many times here on ATS.

So, when I saw the cartoon, it looked to me as though a bomb was hidden in the headpiece of Mohammad.It seemed to me that it was being covertly transported by Mohammad. In other words, Mohammad, a symbol of Islam was being used to pass an evil agenda.

This is what I thought, believe it or not. Until today, I had never seen anyone discuss the actual meaning of the cartoon, other than it was a depiction of Mohammad, which I read had everyone's panties in a knot.

You say Muslims are offended because of their interpretation? I have no reason not to believe you. You seem to know better than I. And I really mean that.



I find it difficult to imagine that by seeing an image of Mohammad with a bomb on his head one could reach the conclusion that the image was trying to convey a message on free speech.


Is this directed at me or the Wiki article? Because I never suggested that the cartoon was about free speech. But after reading the Wiki piece, it certainly makes sense to me.



Indeed, in the Wikipidia article you directed me to, it said that the Mohammad image was published with the following explanatory text in an Article entitled, "The face of Muhammad":

Remember, this is language in advance of the controversy, not after it...


Yes, and I agree with it. But not just about Muslims. For some time, many religious people have considered the non-religious as infidels with no morals. Even before the cartoons. I don't think it's only Muslims, but perhaps Denmark has a particular issue with them, I don't know.

But I do have a real problem with people trying to get everyone else to behave a certain way. And religions seem to be famous for this. Maybe this is so personal to me because I am concerned about the religious right in the US, I don't know. But I do see the danger of surrendering rights for religion. It concerns me.

I'm sleepy, Goodnight.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
"Honestly"? I don't speak any other way.


I got my interpretation from my head!



Fair enough.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Item 1 - I have always hated how George Bush calls himself a Christian. My mother was a person I consider to be a true Christian. She never spoke negatively about anyone. She always looked for the best in people and brought that out. She had an endless amount of compassion and her religion was the center of her life, but she never pushed it on anyone.

So when he and his ilk say they're Christians, it makes me sick. He is hijacking the Christian religion and using it to pass his agenda.


I agree completely.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Item 2 - Assuming for a moment that the people who ran airplanes into the WTC were indeed the Muslim extremists that we've been told they were, this whole Al Qaeda organization and their ilk are also hijacking the Muslim religion and using it to pass their agenda. I have some serious judgments about that. I have argued it many times here on ATS.


Again, I agree completely.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, when I saw the cartoon, it looked to me as though a bomb was hidden in the headpiece of Mohammad.It seemed to me that it was being covertly transported by Mohammad. In other words, Mohammad, a symbol of Islam was being used to pass an evil agenda.

This is what I thought, believe it or not. Until today, I had never seen anyone discuss the actual meaning of the cartoon, other than it was a depiction of Mohammad, which I read had everyone's panties in a knot.


See, I saw Mohammad not being used, but actually transporting the bomb.

The funny thing is now that you have explained it, I can see how you came to the conclusion you did.
It makes sense.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You say Muslims are offended because of their interpretation? I have no reason not to believe you. You seem to know better than I. And I really mean that.


I wish Muslims on this board would participate. I'd like to hear their view.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


I find it difficult to imagine that by seeing an image of Mohammad with a bomb on his head one could reach the conclusion that the image was trying to convey a message on free speech.


Is this directed at me or the Wiki article? Because I never suggested that the cartoon was about free speech. But after reading the Wiki piece, it certainly makes sense to me.


Wiki article.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yes, and I agree with it. But not just about Muslims. For some time, many religious people have considered the non-religious as infidels with no morals. Even before the cartoons. I don't think it's only Muslims, but perhaps Denmark has a particular issue with them, I don't know.

But I do have a real problem with people trying to get everyone else to behave a certain way. And religions seem to be famous for this. Maybe this is so personal to me because I am concerned about the religious right in the US, I don't know. But I do see the danger of surrendering rights for religion. It concerns me.


I agree, but I don't need to attack your grandmother when going after the Pat Robertson crew.


Trust me, Benevelent, I'll be standing with a pitchfork in hand, right beside you, if anyone attempts to take away our freedoms....but I wont be taking as collateral damage the innocents.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm sleepy, Goodnight.


Sleep well.
I really enjoyed it.



[edit on 12-2-2006 by loam]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You say Muslims are offended because of their interpretation? I have no reason not to believe you. You seem to know better than I. And I really mean that.


I wish Muslims on this board would participate. I'd like to hear their view.


Here I am. I'm a muslim


You wish know my interpretation of the cartoon the first time I saw it? Or is it what I interpret the T-shirt vendor's decision to sell these t-shirts?

I'll give you my interpretation to both.

Yes, I find the cartoon very distasteful. To me, it showed a true lack of understanding. Note that I'm talking about this particular cartoon, the one with the turban-bomb. I actually have no objections to the others, maybe a little bit about the one where heaven is running out of virgins -- I found that one quite funny nonetheless.

You see, every muslim, regardless of how religious or not he/she is, considers Prophet Muhammad to be the highest example of what a human being should be like. Not what the highest example of a muslim should be, but an example for all who are human.

Now it doesn't matter what the Rasulallah's (Messenger of God) actual person is like, he is simply regarded as the highest example of a human being. I say this because ALL muslims, even those who are just muslim in name -- I'm talking about those who know nothing of Islam -- even those who know absolutely nothing of the religion have been indoctrinated from birth (maybe even before if the mother reads the Qur'an to the unborn child) are taught that Muhammad is the highest example.

In fact I believe that's what his name even means -- "Exalted One". As such, even the most ignorant among the muslims would feel some sort of reaction to the cartoon.

Now, lets talk about the actual cartoon, the turban-bomb cartoon, which I find distasteful. On the turban you have that symbol with Arabic writing. That symbol is the kalimah syahadaa. It is the muslim creed - la illaha illallahu muhammaddur rasulallah - "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of God."

This is also another one of the most important aspect of Islam, it's the creed to which we live by. It's all you gotta say (3 times, with witnesses) to convert to Islam in fact, that's how important it is.

You have this kalimah on the bomb that is the turban that Prophet Muhammad is wearing. Also this cartoon is part of the "Face of Muhammad" collection. Even the most ignorant of muslims can connect the dots on the first try to mean that Prophet Muhammad, the Exalted one, the one who's values we all aspire to achieve, is bringing Islam with a bomb. Therefore all muslims are terrorists.

I think it's safe to say that all muslims are offended. How offended is another matter, and this is a disclaimer -- I've explained my position on that many times already elsewhere on the boards. If any of you are gonna be obtuse and disregard that fact I'll chalk it up to prejudice -- prejudice that I think this cartoon is displaying.




Now that my interpretation of the cartoon is explained, let's move on to the t-shirt vendor. I think his primary agenda is profits. Also, if what the article quotes him as saying is true, then I think he is also a prejudiced bigot. I'm basing this interpretation purely because of the quotes. Check them out --



[...]

“We can't let the terrorists win. We can not encourage this uncivilized behavior by caving in to their wishes,” said Nate Thomas, product manager for MetroSpy

On their website (www.shopmetrospy.com...), MetroSpy denounces the tactics of Islamic extremists and encourages its customers to stand up against terrorism. "Failing to print these images mean the terrorists have won", the site says.

[...]


What does terrorists have to do with insulting someone? I could buy the freedom of expression idea, but fighting terrorism? Firstly, what kind of person is a terrorist?

I think this definition fits:



: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices


Exactly that type of person, but to the extremes of actually acting on it and downright destruction of those with opposing beliefs. That definition is for the word bigot.

Fight the bigot by being a bigot yourself. Wow, no wonder there's no progress on either side


The t-shirt vendor is just pulling a cheap stunt to profit from this controversy. Nothing to do with fighting terrorism



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Thank you, Beachcoma. Just to clarify, I do not agree with the message that you take from the picture. A miniscule amount of people do and that's because of ignorance and bigotry, which do exist in the world.

Just so you know, everything you said about Muhammad being taught to Muslim children, Christian children are taught about Jesus. I'm just telling you that so you know that many non-Muslims can actually understand how you feel about your Prophet Muhammad.

I'm sure there are different degrees of adherence to Islam as there are different degrees of adherence and devotion in the Christian world. In the lives of those of higher devotion, Jesus is the center of their lives, more important that their children and their own lives.

Beachcoma, may I ask, what do you think should be done about all this? If you've read the thread, or at least the discussion between Loam and I, you'll know that we consider this an important issue but we aren't sure what to do about it.

I'd love to hear your input.
Thanks again.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Thank you BH, you seem very rational and understanding, I do not believe for a second you would agree with what that turban-bomb cartoon is implying (in the eyes of us muslims).

Pertaining to your question, what can be done? I have followed your discussion with loam and you both make very good points. You've reiterated some of the points you have made in the other thread, and I must admit they are very very good points. If you noticed I haven't pursued that in the other thread. I've sorta dropped my personal jihad (struggle) towards self-censorship.
Now renewed as my jihad against bigotry and prejudice


I suppose I would follow loam's line of reasoning though -- not just to be in opposition to you, God I'm not that kind of person
-- but simply because I myself believe that makes sense. That is, from a social perspective people ought to have a bit of self restraint. But then again that is what is taught in the society I live in, so my thoughts on that are very much influenced by the laws already in place in my country.

As I understand it, the laws in place in my country are there for the sake of unity. The government does not seem to trust us to practice complete freedom of speech without breaking those social restraints and frankly so do I.... My countrymen for the most part are still stuck in a 3rd world mentality...


Anyway, back to the issue, I believe self-restraint is needed by both sides of the coin if people if a society is to live in harmony. Tolerance and self-restraint, coz people come in all sizes, shapes and colours. No single group should have their way all the time. A little giving in and a little compromise in between isn't all that bad.

Again my response and my belief here is based on what we are taught here -- in fact I believe that "manners and courtesy" is in the country's pledge of allegiance.


Wikipedia

Five principles

[...]

In English: We, citizens of Malaysia, pledge all our energy and efforts to attain these ends guided by the following principles:


  1. Belief in God
  2. Loyalty to King and Country
  3. Supremacy of the Constitution.
  4. The Rule of Law
  5. Mutual respect and good social behaviour.




Yup there it is, number 5. We say this every Monday during assembly when we were in school, since we were six years of age -- that's gotta be indoctrinated into the majority like it or not


So what can actually be done? I suppose educating the angry muslims that freedom of speech is one of you westerner's highest value while educating bigots on the western side on the significance of muhammad to every muslim regardless of piety would be a start.

Yup, more cultural exchanges between the two. People attack what they don't understand -- it's always been that way. So make them understand, the bigots on both side.
Easier said than done, I know. If there were an easy solution someone would have implemented it



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I think one of the biggest differences in our cultures is that in the Muslim world, God comes first (per the pledge you posted) In the USA, Country comes first.

This is what we said every morning in school as children:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God* indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

*The "under God" was inserted in 1954.

We have the freedom to be religious or not. So many don't understand the devotion to religion that most Muslims have.

But our devotion to our country and its principles is foremost. We are conditioned that our freedoms (including the freedom of speech) are the most important treasures of our country.

We formed this country to escape religious persecution, so when the founding fathers set up the USA, they made sure that the people could practice any religion they wanted or none at all and not be persecuted.

Just a little background there.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Perhaps that's true. I can't say for other muslim countries. But just to for the record, non muslims here are free to practice their religion or not practice any and be an atheist (or 'free-thinker' as they say here).

But for identification card purposes I think you gotta fill some religion other than "Islam" -- it really doesn't matter what as long as it's not an illegal cult.. not sure where the line is drawn. Christian or Buddhist works for most 'free-thinkers.' There's no additional or anything you can call mildly oppresive legislation on non-muslims.

Basically non-muslims are free to go about their business. And for muslims there's an additional layer of laws that varies state by state on top of the federal laws -- nothing too restrictive -- so far all within reason except a couple of petty things -- nothing to relate to the topic at hand though.

Just more background and cultural exchange, so we understand each other better


[edit -- some clarification about Malaysian law]

[edit on 13-2-2006 by Beachcoma]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Perhaps that's true. I can't say for other muslim countries. But just to for the record, non muslims here are free to practice their religion or not practice any and be an atheist (or 'free-thinker' as they say here).

I must have missed that, beachcoma. What is your country? Malaysia?


But for identification card purposes I think you gotta fill some religion other than "Islam" -- it really doesn't matter what as long as it's not an illegal cult.. not sure where the line is drawn. Christian or Buddhist works for most 'free-thinkers.' There's no additional or anything you can call mildly oppresive legislation on non-muslims.

Big difference between our countries. What qualifies as an "illegal cult" in yours, and who determines it?



Basically non-muslims are free to go about their business. And for muslims there's an additional layer of laws that varies state by state on top of the federal laws -- nothing too restrictive -- so far all within reason except a couple of petty things -- nothing to relate to the topic at hand though.

Just more background and cultural exchange, so we understand each other better

Different laws for muslims.

Just reading this, it looks like our countries are very different, and it isn't just in the religious aspect. We may never see eye to eye an all matters.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Yep, Malaysia. I would say our countries are pretty different but not in so many ways we can't see eye to eye. An illegal cult would be a cult that starts of as a deviation of Sunni Islam. This only applies to muslims though, as in muslim cults -- we don't encourage deviations that are somewhat off.. it's kinda hazy where the line is drawn I have to admit. You can read up on the latest weird cult to come out, Sky Kingdom

Each state's government has a branch that's basically the state's muslim council that determines the religious law for muslim, as long as it doesn't conflict with the federal government rulings and the teachings of Islam.

But the government can not undermine the rights of any non-muslim. Yes, different laws for muslims, I but won't say it's in favour of us, if anything there's plenty of stuff we can't do. But we decided it, or at least our elected leaders did with our consent. So...

At any rate we don't have any of those laws that you'd call barbaric, no chopping of hands or stoning or stuff like that. It's really quite a beautiful country, and if you're from the US or Europe, you'll love the exchange rate and the variety of food outlets -- most of which are open 24/7. Also plenty of entertainment joints everywhere. We're pretty liberal for a muslim country. I won't be afraid to claim one of the most liberal muslim countries (not counting Turkey which is secular I think.)



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   

p13.news.re2.yahoo.com...;_ylt=AngRXTZefNet1Xq4nn2egt1PXLoF;_ylu=X3o'___'Bia2Jza2VjBHNlYwNnYWxsZXJ5 (Source -- won't let me tag it)

Interesting take. Not sure what to say about that, except to say that our ideologies could be incompatable with those of Arab nations, and it doesn't work in a global community.

[edit on 2/13/06/13 by junglejake]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
That's so funny! Doesn't she realize that she is expressing herself? If she really believes her sign is true, then she might as well hold a sign that says "I am a Terrorist"

Is it that she doesn't know what Freedom of Expression means? Is she just holding a sigh someone handed her? Even so, doesn't the sign maker get it? Is this a joke?





[edit on 13-2-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Seeking common ground with non-radicals is NOT a weakness. It is a solution.



Tell me how that statement makes sense?

seeking common ground with non radicals isn't a weakness but a solution, when these non radicals aren't even stirring the # pot but rather sitting back shaking their heads knowing that these 'radicals' are giving their religion a bad name.

They know why those cartoons were made, apostatesofislam.com will give you a good eye opener.

Here's an op/ed from a non radical muslim, are these the one's we should be finding a solution with or do we really need to?


On February 3 a State Department press officer, one Janelle Hironimus, declared that “inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable.” “We call for tolerance and respect for all communities,” she went on, “and for their religious beliefs and practices.”

Ms. Hironimus and her bosses are guilty of a fourfold blunder. First of all, they are guilty of gross misrepresentation of fact: The cartoons in question do not incite hatred—religious, ethnic, or any other. Muhammad telling suicide bombers arriving in heaven to stop coming as he’d ran out of virgins, or wearing a turban containing a stick of dynamite, is somewhat funny and mildly satirical. It is not outrageous by any sane standard.

They are also guilty of arrogance: it is not the job of a foreign ministry to pass judgments on cultural matters, or to set standards of “acceptability.” Its job is to promote the country’s interests around the world. In this particular case those interests entail siding with a brave, little fellow-Western society in defending freedom of speech against crude intimidation by our common enemies.

Even more troubling is the hypocrisy, endemic in Washington anyway. The U.S. government did not comment when far worse cases of inciting religious and ethnic hatred occurred here in America, notably when an NEA-funded “artist” submerged a crucifix in his urine, when the Chicago Tribune published a cartoon in 1992 depicting “the Serbs” as a pig emerging from a latrine, or when a winner of the Turner Prize depicted Holy Virgin Mary using “polyester resin, map pins, and elephant dung on linen.” Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as “anti-Christian images, or [those insulting to] any other religious belief,” Ms. Hironimus’ colleague Sean McCormack declared at a State Department press briefing on the same day (February 3), but he was not telling the truth.

And finally, we are witnessing the ongoing delusion at Foggy Bottom about the effect U.S. appeasement will have on the Muslim world. If the State Department believes that it will earn some brownie points for America in the streets of Cairo or Peshawar by betraying the Danes, it is merely repeating Clinton’s Balkan folly of the 1990s and Brzezinski’s Afghan blowback a decade earlier; and “not to learn from history is to be a child for ever” (Cicero).


more Op/Ed on cartoons



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   
You know, it occured to me that another difference between our two societies would be that we put more emphasis on the needs and rights of family, community and society over the needs and rights of the individual.

I think this is pretty much true for all of Asia, including the middle east. I know Malaysia has a "look east" policy, in that we put "Asian Values" of family and society over "Western Values" of individualism and materialism.

Maybe the whole 'shame and honour' idea can be explained in that sense, because when you shame yourself, you shame your family. And when you bring honour to yourself, you bring honour to your family.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   





Italian minister puts Mohammad cartoon on T-shirts

Italy's Reform Minister Roberto Calderoli has had T-shirts made emblazoned with cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad in a move that could embarrass Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government.

Calderoli, a member of the anti-immigrant Northern League party, told Ansa news agency on Tuesday that the West had to stand up against Islamist extremists and offered to hand out T-shirts to anyone who wanted them.

"I have had T-shirts made with the cartoons that have upset Islam and I will start wearing them today," Ansa quoted Calderoli as saying.

He said the T-shirts were not meant to be a provocation but added that he saw no point trying to appease extremists.

"We have to put an end to this story that we can talk to these people. They only want to humiliate people. Full stop. And what are we becoming? The civilization of melted butter?" Calderoli said.



:shk:

Again, let me insult you because someone I'm against happens to share your religion...

Apply that logic to any minority group....does it still makes sense to you?






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join