Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

LunaHound wrote:Ppl get worked up over up over racist jokes.

Now people getting worked up when their god is made fun of = extreme?

I dont think so.

More like " our cultures value things differently , because i dont share the same view as you Muslims , har har ( Nelson laugher) "

In other words , some people really need to start respecting others.
Just because we personally dont believe or care about others believes , doesnt mean we cant give them some common decency /respect.

Luna, the responding posts have, so far, maintained a degree of civility. More than other threads regarding

sebster wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:If I am not a Muslim and my beliefs do not require me to NOT draw prophets, I shouldn't be practically forced to comply with Islamic standards by having my life endangered. I am a Christian. My church has artist depictions of Moses, Noah, and lots of other biblical prophets. They are used in Sunday school classes as visual aids. So, should my entire church be afraid of some Islamic cleric issuing a fatwa against us? Should we be forced into the witness protection agency and have to change our names?

There's two thing here. Yes, you're right that someone's faith shouldn't prevent a person chasing their own artistic vision. But there's also an obligation to not be a dick. Seriously, just because you have the freedom to draw Mohammed it doesn't mean you shouldn't also accept that doing so might offend other people, and therefore you should have a reason to draw him.

I think Salman Rushdie was exploring his faith and the faith of his people, albeit in a highly controversial way, I think what he did was certainly offensive (he wrote of Mohammed and the arch-angle Gabriel in a homosexual relationship) but it was done for genuinely artistic reasons. As such the only criticism to draw there is on the fanatics who declared the fatwa against him.

On the other hand, the only point to 'draw Mohammed day' is to piss of the fanatics. So it isn't good that the cartoonist has suffered a reaction like this, but it's hard to draw much sympathy.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
First, Islamic standards and Western standards are different. One's religious and one's cultural. So, regardless of where I live or my culture, if I'm not a Muslim, I shouldn't be condemned by their clerics for not following Islamic standards.

While I would sincerely like to agree with you, Reality speaks differently. Religion and Culture often go hand-in-hand and it would be foolish to discredit the links so swiftly.

EDIT: What I mean to say is that, IMHO, Relgion should be an entirely seperate matter from other aspects of our lives, but this is highly unfeasible.

Second, if someone is going into the witness protection program, then yes, the threats are probably real and can be carried out.

You mean to say that Al-Qaeda has the capacity to hunt down and kill US citizens on US soil at their leisure, in addition to waging a war spanning several countries against the combined might of the Western Worlds forces?

Or is this more likely to be another Angry, Angry Imam or somesuch spouting the same tired rhetoric?

Never the less, should a Christian be held accountable for breaking Islamic laws? The answer is no.

Should a Christian be held to Christian laws? What if they don't want to be?

It doesn't have to be Al-Qaeda that attacks the cartoonist. IIRC, the Swedish cartoonist with a similar situation was attacked and his house was attacked several times. I'm sure the people who attacked him weren't Al-Qaeda.

Point, but is ther honestly that much of a chance of this occuring in Seattle?

Well, I'm back. I've been up for over 24 hours waiting for my replacements and inprocessing them. Now it's time for some much needed sleep.

Actually, things have been pretty civil on this thread. Thank you guys. I think there has been some good debating without hate or venom.

Well, personally, I think if you belong to a religion and you profess to believe it, then yes, you should probably be held accountable for your actions and conduct within the regulations of that religion. Although, I know that no one is perfect which is why I believe you can't follow your religion perfectly. However, without going into a ginormous religious discussion, I also believe in the principle of repentance which helps you overcome said imperfections. I don't know what to say if a Christian doesn't want to be held accountable for their actions in relation to being a Christian. I suppose even if they don't want to be held accountable, by the very nature of professing to be a Christian, you would still be held accountable.

As far as an attack on someone in Seattle, I couldn't give you a 100% answer. I imagine whatever city you live in there is the possibility of an attack. I would venture that your probability would be higher in a larger city, such as Seattle, than a rural area like eastern Washington.

But I'd like to point out again, that we're all being pretty civil in this thread. Go us!

We are held to religious standards every day of our lives, regardless of our faith. Taste is easily legislated, especially when supported by a common belief. This may definitely be an extreme and ridiculous outcry against infidelity, but to think that it is the only instance of such behavior is absolutely absurd.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:I agree with you. It wasn't a smart thing to do on the cartoonist part by any means, but it didn't a necessitate a fatwa endangering her life.

No, it doesnt' deserve a fatwa, you're absolutely right. But lots of things attract excessive penalties... I mean, if I hit on the wife on a notorious gangster I don't deserve to get curbstomped but at the same time a lot of the reaction will be 'why did you expect when you provoked the gangster, you idiot.'

It's the same thing here - why provoke the most extreme fringes of Islam, and why provoke them by breaking a taboo that's important to all Islam?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:Obligation is not the word I would use there.

No? I didn't mean to imply that we can never, ever offend anyone, just that you really ought to have a good reason for doing so. 'Look, they overreact when I offend them' isn't much of a reason, if you ask me.

I think there is a very interesting question in all of this. What does 'drawing Mohammed' mean? Is it a literal drawing? What formats are considered the most offensive? Is there any distinction there?

I think it's just any graphical representation. Art in the region was highly abstract before Islam, there was a general taboo on drawing any person, and I think that's where the taboo on drawing Mohammed comes from.

Supposedly, she didn't coin the term, but I never followed this story all that closely.

I haven't really followed this either. The first round with the Danish cartoonist was annoying enough, two groups of nincompoops trying to cause trouble where none need exist.

LunaHound wrote:Ppl get worked up over up over racist jokes.

Now people getting worked up when their god is made fun of = extreme?

I dont think so.

More like " our cultures value things differently , because i dont share the same view as you Muslims , har har ( Nelson laugher) "

In other words , some people really need to start respecting others.
Just because we personally dont believe or care about others believes , doesnt mean we cant give them some common decency /respect.

However, it is part of our culture that you can speak and indeed satarise freely (up to a certain point) anything that you want without fear of death threats. When you have such conflicting cultures, the more violent extremists of one culture should not dictate to the other what they can and cannot say. I would go so far as to say that it is the very presence of such people which spurs the west as a whole on to speaking out against Islam and satarise their views, since we generally don't go round burning the flags of Islamic states, declaring holy wars on people and generally behave like we were back in the dark ages.

I don't know how credible the threats posed by Fatwas are in Seattle, I would imagine Seattle would be a much harder place for Assassinations than most.

O RLY?


Tell that to this poor sod.

Just because we don't share the view of others, doesn't mean we can't respect them eh Luna?

I've been to several Muslim nations, they treat women like rats. They think gays should be stoned to death, they treat kaffirs and infidels worse than everybody else simply because they don't agree with them. And you talk about respect?

You wouldn't be able to argue with me in a Muslim country, for god made the man superior to the woman.

Islam disgusts me, almost as much as apologists like you who aren't even Muslim but take great offence on behalf of them.

Respect is earned, nor given freely. I don't respect rapists or murderers either, so how can anybody demand I respect something that makes equally little sense to me, and causes misery to millions of women around the world.

I don't respect Islam for perfectly logical reasons, I never will, and if you actually knew what several million afghan women had been through, I very much doubt you would as well.

sebster wrote:No? I didn't mean to imply that we can never, ever offend anyone, just that you really ought to have a good reason for doing so. 'Look, they overreact when I offend them' isn't much of a reason, if you ask me.

Of course it isn't a good reason, in many ways it is a blatantly crappy reason. While I'm not fond of the fact that people can do these things, I think it is important that they are allowed to do so. There was an awful lot of reaction to the 'I'm going to burn this Koran' douche-nozzle, but I stand in support of his right to have done so. There are much larger problems to address when one idiot can stand up and garner international coverage in such an intense fashion. We are back on the point of journalistic responsibility and I am sure you're clear that I have an ambivalent position on that subject.

It's complicated. At the very least an enormous amount of pressure was mounted against the religious pyromaniac, that was definitely clear enough to see.

I think it's just any graphical representation. Art in the region was highly abstract before Islam, there was a general taboo on drawing any person, and I think that's where the taboo on drawing Mohammed comes from.

Huh, that's interesting. Much like the photo capturing your soul thing, I'm sure.

I haven't really followed this either. The first round with the Danish cartoonist was annoying enough, two groups of nincompoops trying to cause trouble where none need exist.

If there were more pressure against these kind of actions, not to say speaking your mind is inherently wrong, the anomalies we see now could very well never have existed; more importantly, never have been picked up by the larger media in such a grandiose way.

There needs to be a stronger force against this kind of stuff in the first place. I want this stuff picked up by the media on some scale, I just want that action to come with much stronger counterpoints, months if not years in advance. People need to know that the matchy-mcburnakoran is a fool, before he hits the big screen. Get him up there with a stamp on his forehead.

I have to agree with mattyrm on this one - I've lived in several muslim countries and have visited many more (though generally not those at war with us as mattyrm has ) and the culture shock is quite extreme. Even the more moderate nations have areas where you would hesitate to enter as a woman (especially if you were alone and from the west).

Plus they keep on mistaking me for a German, which is just inexcusable

Mattyrm wrote:I don't respect Islam for perfectly logical reasons, I never will, and if you actually knew what several million afghan women had been through, I very much doubt you would as well.

While I am not entirely sure I agree that you are speaking from arguments based in logic, I agree with your general sentiment on this point specifically.

Now, I am very prepared to move past that outrage and work my way back into pragmatism. There does not appear to be any way to fight those issues, in those specific countries, without waging a war that is so far beyond our means it isn't even funny.

I prefer to acknowledge that we are not the only culture in the world. Whether we look down our noses at each other, or other countries, has very little bearing on much of anything. I would definitely argue that constantly attacking a religion with sweeping insults and suggestions, is hardly an effective way to convince millions upon millions of people, that we are right.

Islam, Islam, Islam. Milions. Of. Fething. People. In. Dozens. Of. Different. Countries.

LunaHound wrote:doesnt mean we cant give them some common decency /respect.

Yes everyone deserves common decency, respect on the other hand is a different thing.

As your mother hopefully told you, you don't get respect by burning peoples stuff, threatening to kill people and planning acts of terrorism.

Not all muslims are violent, not all muslims are extremists, but there are many thousands if not millions of muslims who are, they demand that westerners show respect for their beliefs but show none to others, from what i understand about the U.S. is that the U.S. flag is pretty much a 'relic', thee symbol of the country (due to such a relatively short history) so buring a U.S. flag would aquate to depicting the muslim prophet. they demand so much, while looking down on westerners like , thats not how you get respect

This is sad more than anything. Islam as a religion has come down a long way from what it "used" to be - the Koran even states that "respect all religions, as they respect yours".

And, don't mistake me for an apologist to these kinds of things - also, I'm not saying that we should live in fear of doing things like "Muhammad the Bomb" (the Denmark case from a few years ago, the artist still lives in safehouses) but that people should take into account that (much like internet trolling), if you know that something is highly inflamable, you probably shouldn't light a match.

Let's not forget that we're talking about an iconoclastic religion. Drawing their prophet is something that will offend not only an extremist.

Prohibition from drawing Mohammad isn't even stated in the Qu'ran. Some Muslims have no problem with it depending who you ask, in fact you can find several depictions created by Muslim artists if you dig.

Taking the opportunity to draw offensive pictures of Mohammad (him blowing a horse for example) under the guise of "fighting censorship" is dumb, almost as dumb as burning Qu'rans.

Word.

There is a difference between making a serious political or social comment and just shouting rude things at the neighbours.

avantgarde wrote:Prohibition from drawing Mohammad isn't even stated in the Qu'ran. Some Muslims have no problem with it depending who you ask, in fact you can find several depictions created by Muslim artists if you dig.

Taking the opportunity to draw offensive pictures of Mohammad (him blowing a horse for example) under the guise of "fighting censorship" is dumb, almost as dumb as burning Qu'rans.

The Qu'ran does say that it shall not have idols, or images, of Muhammed (and if you could point me to those depictions, I would be thankful).

What we think of as free speech is not consequence free. I absolutely agree with your second statement. However, a drawing of Muhammed with a bomb instead of his turban is an interesting parody, and quite different from what you suggested (one that cost Denmark quite a few embassies and led to "nearly 100 deaths"). What it seems to me is that, on numerous aspects, we have a religion that is going through the "Dark ages" (sorry if I am at a loss to use a proper analogy), much like the Catholic one did. (Some seven centuries ago?)

Still, I read in many places that during that time it was a somewhat advanced culture, especially compared to most europeans. Elegant and literate, though it always had "harsh penalties" and sometimes placed low value on life. Wonder how the latter became the mainstay of the religion.

Destrado wrote:Still, I read in many places that during that time it was a somewhat advanced culture, especially compared to most europeans. Elegant and literate, though it always had "harsh penalties" and sometimes placed low value on life. Wonder how the latter became the mainstay of the religion.

Quite right, the islamic nations up to and including the 'middle ages' were pretty much glorious, full of art, scientific endevour, and open trade with other nations and were it not for the fall of the muslim's hold on parts of Spain, North America could have been settled by muslims instead of christians. Even around the time of the world wars islamic countries had greater levels freedom and tolerance.

Unfortunetly religious dark ages can take a long while to get through

Destrado wrote:

avantgarde wrote:Prohibition from drawing Mohammad isn't even stated in the Qu'ran. Some Muslims have no problem with it depending who you ask, in fact you can find several depictions created by Muslim artists if you dig.

Taking the opportunity to draw offensive pictures of Mohammad (him blowing a horse for example) under the guise of "fighting censorship" is dumb, almost as dumb as burning Qu'rans.

http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/

mattyrm wrote:for god made the man superior to the woman.

Well, that isn't so much a religious issue as just good old fashioned common sense. Amiright fellas?

Thank you, Killkrazy, that's quite interesting to read.

On an off-topic note, and regarding the Man > Woman, I've heard that under Hinduism, the reward of a Virtuous Woman is to be reborn as a man.

Internet high-five (without repost).

Destrado wrote:Thank you, Killkrazy, that's quite interesting to read.

On an off-topic note, and regarding the Man > Woman, I've heard that under Hinduism, the reward of a Virtuous Woman is to be reborn as a man.

Internet high-five (without repost).

Uhm, yeah it comes up every now and than. Of course the upanishads and vedas are older than the old testament so it isn't really all that shocking. I can speak more to the Buddhist side of it off the top of my head. The historical Buddha supposedly said that it was better to be born a man than a women. Now there are several schools of thought on this. One is that it was the times and the other basically says that Buddha looked around him and saw that women were second class citizens generally, and most were not allowed an education. Without literacy and access to higher learning it would be more difficult for a woman to find enlightenment at that time. In other words, it isn't that males are inherently better, just that at the time (and still today to an extent) women aren't given the same resources as men and thus have an extra stumbling block toward enlightenment.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It is all a crappy mess.

All Muslims didn't overreact hastily, only the most traditional extremists.

Stop tarring them all with the same brush, it is thoughtless and bigoted.

It strikes blows against the moderate majority and drives them out of western society into the hands of extremists.

Killkrazy, obviously not all Muslims over react. However, this is a story about one that did over react. No one who is not a Muslim should be held to Islamic religious standards. Period.

This is kind of funny, given the 'Stoning Woman' argument in a previous thread. Should Non-Westerners be held to Western Standards?

I might also point out that going into the Witness Protection program, changing your name and relocating ect, seems to be a big reaction to a threat like this. I don't know how credible the threats posed by Fatwas are in Seattle, I would imagine Seattle would be a much harder place for Assassinations than most. Do they actually have the means to carry out these promises?

Not really, considering the price put out on the head of an Irish Cartoonist with a bonus offered if he was "killed like a lamb", or the Danish cartoonist that had the guy with an axe go after him.
The thing that bugs me is that the only option that seems to be offered is to hide in her own country from these bastages. The FBI is telling her that she cant't be protected in her own country by law enforcement? It seems like gun owners scored a big point on that admission.
It might not have been the smartest thing to insult a religion that has time and again proven it has more than it's share of members willing to kill over a word of dissent and seems forever locked in a dark ages mentality, but on the other side of the coin, Muslims aren't shy about burning flags and celebrating things like the twin towers going down. Even before the U.S. went into Afganastan, the highjackers were being lionized as martyrs. The fact that some backwater preacher wants to burn some books, or a couple of pictures get drawn of Mohhamad overshadows 3,000 people being murdered, setting the war machine into action.

The thing that bugs me is that the only option that seems to be offered is to hide in her own country from these bastages. The FBI is telling her that she cant't be protected in her own country by law enforcement? It seems like gun owners scored a big point on that admission.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/us/17cartoon.html?_r=1

The cartoonist, Molly Norris, has changed her name and has stopped producing work for a local alternative newspaper, Seattle Weekly, according to the newspaper’s editor, Mark D. Fefer.

Mr. Fefer declined an interview request Thursday, citing “the sensitivity of the situation.” But in a letter to readers about Ms. Norris on Wednesday, he said that “on the insistence of top security specialists at the F.B.I., she is, as they put it, ‘going ghost’: moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity.”

The F.B.I. declined to comment on the case.

This is the very reason why I tend to ignore stories like this. I have absolutely no idea what is going on here and I highly doubt the possibility that any of the news agencies that picked this story up do either. It would not be surprising if Mark Fefer declined comment because he literally doesn't know any more than we do.

The echo chamber loves a story like this. I happen to hate it.

The fact that some backwater preacher wants to burn some books, or a couple of pictures get drawn of Mohhamad overshadows 3,000 people being murdered, setting the war machine into action.

I'm going to ignore the fact that you grossly generalized with the sentences before this. I simply want to know what you mean by this sentence.

Backwater preacher --> Pictures of Mohammed --> 9/11 --> War?

I don't follow.

Wrexasaur wrote:I'm going to ignore the fact that you grossly generalized with the sentences before this. I simply want to know what you mean by this sentence.

Backwater preacher --> Pictures of Mohammed --> 9/11 --> War?

I don't follow.

i think he was saying while the actions of one right wing preacher in america or a defender of free speech cartoonist gets embassies bombed/attacked/set on fire, hitlists made, and riots, while the group of muslims that say the west has no respect for their beliefs, have no problem burning effigies of world leaders and a country's flag or making persian rugs depicting the burning world trade centre

If am clear on this, what is suggested by your reading of that sentence, is that:

- One person can anger many people.
- There are a lot of angry people.
- There are two sides to this issue; disregard the complicated bits... or something.

That makes sense I guess, but it doesn't change the fact that I just read one of the most complicated and strange sentences I have ever seen... woah, I mean woah.

Wrexasaur wrote:If am clear on this, what is suggested by your reading of that sentence, is that:

- One person can anger many people.
- There are a lot of angry people.
- There are two sides to this issue; disregard the complicated bits... or something.

That makes sense I guess, but it doesn't change the fact that I just read one of the most complicated and strange sentences I have ever seen... woah, I mean woah.

Willfully obtuse poster is willfully obtuse.

He's saying, if I may break it down, that you can't reasonably complain about an American burning a Khoran if you have a burning American flag in your hand.

OH SNAP!





Seriously...

Funny, I have that particular copy of the Koran.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
Willfully obtuse poster is willfully obtuse.

He's saying, if I may break it down, that you can't reasonably complain about an American burning a Khoran if you have a burning American flag in your hand.

That depends on whether or not you differentiate between religious and nationalist symbols.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Backwater preacher --> Pictures of Mohammed --> 9/11 --> War?

I don't follow.

As you might or might not recall, an obscure preacher in Florida a couple of weeks ago set off a firestorm in the Islamic world by threatening to burn some Korans. Even Christians in large numbers spoke out against this guy.

People are given death threats and attacked for a cartoon, article, or a book against Islam, yet there doesn't seem to be an outpouring of moderate Muslims decrying actions like this as there are against the preacher.

Contrasting to this:

When the Twin Towers went down, there was dancing in the streets in various cities in the middle east and celebrations among a fair section of the Muslim populace. The highjackers are regarded as heroes.

The U.S. went to war in Afganastan over the twin towers, yet somehow find themselves the ones being blamed for starting the war.

It boils down to a lot of hypocracy and political correctness about Islam.

Hypocrisy is really, really hard to prove. So it probably isn't the best line of criticism. For example, simply acting against one's words does not make one a hypocrite, as moral fortitude excuses one from the criticism.

That being said, the fact that almost all media is slanted towards the West has to be accounted for, and its quite rare for Western media to represent anything that isn't related to terror abroad.

I wonder if Feisal Abdul Rauf, (the guy building the ground zero mosque) will let her stay with him? That would be some good PR, and maybe change some minds. Or does tolerance center only work one way?