Marijuana.com

Buzzby · 02-06-2006, 07:01 PM

I've been following the story of the Muslim reaction to the publication in Danish and other EU papers of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. People are rioting, making death threats, burning embassies, and people are getting killed in the riots.

My first reaction was, "How can people be so simpleminded as to confuse symbols with reality?" My second was, "How can they expect us to respect their sacred symbols if they don't respect ours? How many times have we seen Arab/Muslim protesters burning the American flag?" The countries of the Middle East are concerned about the West imposing their values on predominately Muslim countries. At the same time, they have no problem trying to impose their values on Western nations. Freedom of speech, expression, and religion are primary Western values.

I'm not at all happy about the way the governments of Western nations are apologizing and saying that it was wrong to publish these images. It's very PC to try not to offend anyone, but when being politically correct interferes with freedom of the press it has gone much too far.

Thinking further, I realized that there are Conservatives in this country who want to amend the First Amendment and make it a crime to burn the American flag. Confusion of symbols and reality is not limited to the Muslim community.

Cassius · 02-06-2006, 07:16 PM

I heard that in response to the outcry, many newspapers reprinted the cartoons in spite.

That make you feel better? =)

Actually, I happen to agree with you. Political cartoons are the bread-and-butter of free speech.

02-07-2006, 07:41 AM

What is a Symbol and what is an Icon?

Anyone remember the uproar caused by the Crucific in Urine photograph?

And what about Anti Semetic Caricatures durinf the 30's and 40's?

...

The cartoon/caricature/editorial of these images was clear -- no language barrier --

Was it really a necessary, Civilized act?

Did the ends -- in this case uproar, violence and deaths -- justify the means/needs of its publication?

...don't look to me for the answers...I'm just askin'.

**troublemaker_42** · 02-07-2006, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mamabudz

Did the ends -- in this case uproar, violence and deaths -- justify the means/needs of its publication?

...don't look to me for the answers...I'm just askin'.

I think a better question would be "did the means justify the ends?" in this case. Is a single death over a cartoon justifiable in any way? Was the cartoon offensive? Possibly, and certainly, to some, it seems. however, I don't feel as if an image on a piece of paper should ever be justification for the death of a human being. Once again, a clash of ideals that turns a novelty into a reason to kill. We need to accecpt that we have different beliefs, each and every one of us, and that siding on one side doesn't justify killing the other(seems like a simple concept, no?).

Can you imagine the outcry if US citizens behaved as segements of the Muslim population have been acting, each time a US flag was burned? Maybe we should....after all, we're Americans, branded the world over for our propensity to overreaction and shows of force. However, no one would sympathize with us. its hard to feel sorry for one of, if not THE, most powerful country in the world. I seriously doubt, though, that we would be getting widespread apologies from the Muslim nations. Diplomacy is a dying art these days. After all, we're wrong, they're right, or vice-versa....theres no middle ground to be had. With no middle ground, comprmise, or even a distant understanding, is impossible to achieve.

Theres a time, place and method of expressing one's displeasure. However, I tend to believe that widescale rioting over a satrical cartoon isn't the most productive way of going about it. Then again, flying a couple of planes into the WTC wouldn't be my first idea to send a message that times are changing either

Cassius · 02-07-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

What is a Symbol and what is an Icon?

I would suppose that an icon is an important symbol, a symbol that is somehow religiously or otherwise significant. However, in this context, there is no significant difference -- an icon is still a symbol, in that an icon is not reality.

Quote:

The cartoon/caricature/editorial of these images was clear -- no language barrier --

Was it really a necessary, Civilized act?

That is completely the wrong question to be asking. Is Celine Dion's latest album a necessary act? We don't prevent her from making them. Is the Daily Show or the Late Show a necessary act? Letterman, Conan, and Big-Jaw sure have a way of offending segments of the population, but we don't ban them from television. Is designing boxier cars like the Pontiac Aztec a necessary act? I hate seeing their ugly shape on the road, but we still let the auto makers build what they want and let the market decide whether they succeed or fail. You get the point.

Something being "necessary" is hardly a requirement for permissibility. You do know what free speech means, don't you?

Quote:

Did the ends -- in this case uproar, violence and deaths -- justify the means/needs of its publication?

...don't look to me for the answers...I'm just askin'.

So, let me get this straight. The cartoon, and thus the cartoon's creators, publishors, distributors, and promoters, are somehow responsible for the riots? So we should now make cartooning a licensed profession, and force them to by law consider all the possible implications and outcomes of their political cartoons before they write/publish them?

Quote:

I think a better question would be "did the means justify the ends?" in this case. Is a single death over a cartoon justifiable in any way?

Again, how is the cartoon or the cartoon makers responsible for how people react to the cartoon? Is this a matter of taste, or of law? You can't legislate taste. The minute you ban something because it's "offensive", you're going to have to ban all creative works period, because there is always somebody that is going to find a particular thing offensive. Everything is offensive in one way or another, it's just a question of how many people are offended by it out of the world population -- is it 5? 1000? 1,000,000? Where do you draw the line? How are you supposed to judge how offensive something is? Should we just ban anything and everything that is even slightly, remotely, indirectly offensive?

Quote:

Theres a time, place and method of expressing one's displeasure. However, I tend to believe that widescale rioting over a satrical cartoon isn't the most productive way of going about it.

You're right there, and now I see that you were really arguing the same side as me. But it seemed like you were reinforcing the questions Mama asked, when you said "is a single death over a cartoon justifiable?" (I though you were blaming the cartoon).

In any case, with every passing day I become more and more an advocate of personal responsibility. Like I've said many times before, one of the greatest things about being human is that we have the ability to choose our response to every stimulus we encounter. Because some people ignore that ability to choose, and instead react to thing instead of being proactive about them, and most often let their emotions lead them in their reactions, that is no reason to destroy one of the most liberating properties of our republic.

Buzzby · 02-07-2006, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mamabudz

What is a Symbol and what is an Icon?

An icon is a symbol to which people have attached a great deal of emotional importance.

Quote:

Anyone remember the uproar caused by the Crucific in Urine photograph?

If I recall properly, that wasn't followed by rioting, arson, and death threats against whole nations.

Quote:

And what about Anti Semetic Caricatures durinf the 30's and 40's?

They were offensive. So what? They were just cartoons. Being offended is not something over which people should commit acts of violence. Most of us figure that out somewhere between the first grade and high school graduation.

Quote:

Was it really a necessary, Civilized act?

Necessary, no. Civilized, highly. The free expression of opinion is one of the earmarks of advanced civilization.

Quote:

Did the ends -- in this case uproar, violence and deaths -- justify the means/needs of its publication?

Unless you want all political speech censored against the possibility that highly intolerant people might object violently, freedom of expression requires no justification.

A parallel: Should abortions be outlawed because some morons choose to blow up the clinics?

I'm very disappointed that no US news outlets (that I know of) have reprinted these cartoons so we can find out what all the fuss is about. All I've been able to find are thumbnails on European web sites.

Cassius · 02-07-2006, 06:32 PM

You know, I bet they're just jealous at our creative ability. We've got all these people who make their living off of satire and comedy, and all they can think of to do to offend us is burn our flag. =P

PotShot · 02-07-2006, 06:50 PM

It is kinda of strange that they get outraged by the notion of a picture of mohamed, so in response death-treats are made.

Their response to them being depicted as crazy and outrageous is to go crazy and act outrageously? I applaud the cartoons, and think it is horrible that the U.S. state department condemed them. It is more evidence of our governments willingness to stamp out freedom of speech, certainly when it comes in conflict with pointing out the insanity of religion.'

Of all the talk about how horrible the "evil-doers" are, we need to look at what inspires them to do evil; that is, crazy, fanatical beliefs. Such as, murder is justified when someone creates just the right pattern of light. Absolute nonsense.

Higher Logic · 02-07-2006, 07:48 PM

No religious dogma should impose itself on a democratic and secular society. I realize that isn't that case sometimes, especially in America where religious dogma is constantly being imposed, but that's what ideally should be going on here. Mark another one up for religion

Quote:

Regarding the death of a 17-year-old Lebanese boy who died during the attack on the Danish consulate...

"If the army only had let us burn down the consulate without resistance this would not have had to happen. We wanted to get to the consulate, but the army tried to stop us" says Tala, only 14 years old.

"Every muslim must kill a Dane, a Frenchman or another Westerner."

Yup, we've got a long way to go. Maybe we should get rid of this War on Terrorism and make it a War on Religion, after all, it is a psychological disorder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Dvorsky

Imagine that you're a psychiatrist. A new patient comes to see you and says that he regularly talks to an invisible being who never responds, that he reads excerpts from one ancient book and that he believes wholeheartedly that its contents must be accepted implicitly, if not taken literally.

The patient goes on to say that that the world is only 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs never existed. He brazenly rejects modern science's observations and conclusions, and subscribes to the notion that after death he will live in eternal bliss in some alternate dimension. And throughout your meeting, he keeps handing you his book and urging you to join him, lest you end up after death in a far less desirable alternate dimension than him.

Is this a mentally healthy person? If you were a responsible psychiatrist, how could you answer yes? These symptoms border on delusional schizophrenia, which the American Psychological Association's DSM-IV describes as involving a profound disruption in cognition and emotion, assigning unusual significance or meaning to normal events and holding fixed false personal beliefs.

So, should you insist on follow-up appointments along with some strong medication? Well, quite obviously, the patient is a religious fundamentalist. So he would most likely not be diagnosed with a psychological problem. In fact, such a diagnosis could land you in hot water; the patient's religious beliefs are constitutionally protected.

Yet, perhaps it's time this changed, and that we made religious fundamentalism a mental and cultural health issue. People should be able to believe what they like, but only so long as their convictions don't harm others or, arguably, themselves. Fundamentalism, however, breeds fanaticism and often leads to terrible violence, injustice and inequality. If society can force drug addicts into rehabilitation because they're a danger to themselves and the public, then we should be able to compel religious fundamentalists to undergo treatment as well.

[...]

Moreover, the effect of fundamentalism on society is as detrimental as the effect of fundamentalism on believers. Fundamentalists are the ones who fly planes into skyscrapers and murder doctors that perform abortions. They are the ones who deny the existence of proven physical phenomena while rabidly insisting on the existence of clearly unsubstantiated marvels.

They are also incapable of recognizing that they have a problem, and are often amongst the most intolerant people on this planet, commonly referring to non-believers as pagans, heathens, or infidels.

And historically, underdeveloped sciences, mystically perpetuated pseudo sciences and false assumptions about the nature of reality have resulted in misery and countless social injustices. The more rational the understanding that humans have about their existence, the better off they are in dealing with the hazards of life and developing humane moral philosophies.

Full Article

HL: Almost puts things into perspective when you put yourself outside of the box, no?

Here's one of the cartoons, I can't find the other one though.

Quote:

Parallels can be drawn between the controversy and other instances of Muslim outrage over depictions of their religion in Europe. Most notable is the 1989 fatwa issued by Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini urging Muslims to kill British author Salman Rushdie, whose book, "The Satanic Verses," contains elements considered blasphemous by some Muslims. Angry Muslims killed some of the book's translators and burned stores selling the book in some countries. A more recent example of Muslim wrath was the November 2004 slaying by a militant Muslim of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, whose documentary about violence against Muslim women contained depictions of Koranic verses on female bodies. In this latest controversy, it should be noted that Muslims would consider any caricature of Mohammed as blasphemous.

[...]

The fact that outrage over the cartoons did not surface until several months after the cartoons' first publication suggests that some Muslims in Europe were looking for a reason to vent frustration over their economic and social situations, especially since European countries have been slow to respond to simmering tensions. Europeans, meanwhile, have grown less tolerant of Muslim immigrants in the wake of recent riots in France's Muslim communities and terrorist attacks in Spain and Britain.

Ah, the real face of religion right here.

Yup, you just gotta admire religion and all its forms.

Higher Logic · 02-08-2006, 01:47 AM

I found all the cartoons actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Drawings or go here for the full drawings:

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

02-06-2006, 07:01 PM	#1
Buzzby Buddhist Curmudgeon Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 13,609 Grams: 36,592.77 Groans: 25 Groaned at 34 Times in 29 Posts Thanks: 436 Thanked 2,786 Times in 1,467 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	Symbols vs Reality I've been following the story of the Muslim reaction to the publication in Danish and other EU papers of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. People are rioting, making death threats, burning embassies, and people are getting killed in the riots. My first reaction was, "How can people be so simpleminded as to confuse symbols with reality?" My second was, "How can they expect us to respect their sacred symbols if they don't respect ours? How many times have we seen Arab/Muslim protesters burning the American flag?" The countries of the Middle East are concerned about the West imposing their values on predominately Muslim countries. At the same time, they have no problem trying to impose their values on Western nations. Freedom of speech, expression, and religion are primary Western values. I'm not at all happy about the way the governments of Western nations are apologizing and saying that it was wrong to publish these images. It's very PC to try not to offend anyone, but when being politically correct interferes with freedom of the press it has gone much too far. Thinking further, I realized that there are Conservatives in this country who want to amend the First Amendment and make it a crime to burn the American flag. Confusion of symbols and reality is not limited to the Muslim community. __________________ "Say, don't you remember, they called me Al; it was Al all the time. Say, don't you remember, I'm your pal? Buddy, can you spare a dime?" ~ Yip Harburg, 1931 Theocracy Watch

02-06-2006, 07:16 PM	#2
Cassius Seasoned Activist Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,161 Grams: 2,257.35 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	I heard that in response to the outcry, many newspapers reprinted the cartoons in spite. That make you feel better? =) Actually, I happen to agree with you. Political cartoons are the bread-and-butter of free speech. __________________ { Cassius, Your Humble Narrator } { Posting Guidelines \| Erowid Drug Information Resource \| instantfilehosting.com }

02-07-2006, 06:50 PM	#8
PotShot Sr. Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 925 Grams: 2,768.07 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	It is kinda of strange that they get outraged by the notion of a picture of mohamed, so in response death-treats are made. Their response to them being depicted as crazy and outrageous is to go crazy and act outrageously? I applaud the cartoons, and think it is horrible that the U.S. state department condemed them. It is more evidence of our governments willingness to stamp out freedom of speech, certainly when it comes in conflict with pointing out the insanity of religion.' Of all the talk about how horrible the "evil-doers" are, we need to look at what inspires them to do evil; that is, crazy, fanatical beliefs. Such as, murder is justified when someone creates just the right pattern of light. Absolute nonsense. __________________ Posting Guidelines Carl Sagan Goodness Richard Dawkins Goodness --------------------- THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate View Forum Leaders Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read

Remove Advertisements Marijuana.com Sponsor
Marijuana.com Advertisement	<a rel='nofollow' href='http://adserver.marijuana.com/www/delivery/ck.php?n=a78e9dba&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE' target='_blank'><img src='http://adserver.marijuana.com/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=6&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE&n=a78e9dba' border='0' alt='' /></a>

02-07-2006, 07:41 AM	#3
Mamabudz Posts: n/a Grams: 0 [Check] Stock Portfolio Total Value: Gain/Loss: %	What is a Symbol and what is an Icon? Anyone remember the uproar caused by the Crucific in Urine photograph? And what about Anti Semetic Caricatures durinf the 30's and 40's? ... The cartoon/caricature/editorial of these images was clear -- no language barrier -- Was it really a necessary, Civilized act? Did the ends -- in this case uproar, violence and deaths -- justify the means/needs of its publication? ...don't look to me for the answers...I'm just askin'.

02-07-2006, 06:32 PM	#7
Cassius Seasoned Activist Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,161 Grams: 2,257.35 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	You know, I bet they're just jealous at our creative ability. We've got all these people who make their living off of satire and comedy, and all they can think of to do to offend us is burn our flag. =P

02-08-2006, 01:47 AM	#10
Higher Logic Web Developer Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 6,124 Grams: 5,447.83 Groans: 3 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 2 Thanked 57 Times in 33 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	I found all the cartoons actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Drawings or go here for the full drawings: http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Marijuana.com

Hot Products: