Buzzby

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

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 }

Mamabudz

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

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

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.

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?

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?

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?

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

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


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


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.


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


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

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

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.

__________________

Carl Sagan Goodness Richard Dawkins Goodness

Mamabudz

I'm Scarey sometimes...ain't I boys?

...have a cookie

Higher Logic

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/

__________________
Crucial Web Hosting · Garden's Cure · Marijuana Recipes · Drug Testing Facts

Dilution · Substitution · Urine Testing · Hair Testing · Drug Testing FAQ