It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Maybe you can change my mind.
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.
Why are they being brought up now? Who benefits by making that the primary issue?
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.
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.
...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.
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
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.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League have demanded that the United Nations impose international sanctions upon Denmark.[3]
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.
Originally posted by loam
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":
Remember, this is language in advance of the controversy, not after it...
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
"Honestly"? I don't speak any other way.
I got my interpretation from my head!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm sleepy, Goodnight.
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.
[...]
“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.
[...]
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
Wikipedia
Five principles
[...]
In English: We, citizens of Malaysia, pledge all our energy and efforts to attain these ends guided by the following principles:
- Belief in God
- Loyalty to King and Country
- Supremacy of the Constitution.
- The Rule of Law
- Mutual respect and good social behaviour.
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).
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
Originally posted by loam
Seeking common ground with non-radicals is NOT a weakness. It is a solution.
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).
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.