I don't think we have any discussion about the Danish Muhammad cartoons....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/06/international/middleeast/06cartoon.html?hp&ex=1139202000&en=d7fd387b0985d049&ei=5094&partner=homepage

http://retecool.com/comments.php?id=13539_0_1_0_C

Here’s another American website making complete fun of Christians:

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

(Notice, no one is threatening hostage taking over this one.)

Here's a couple bits of writing from our American founding fathers two hundred years ago- they had more sense:

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of... Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."- Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)

Benjamin Franklin

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."--Benjamin Franklin, _Poor_Richard_, 1758

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."--Benjamin Franklin, _Poor_Richard_, 1758

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it." -- Benjamin Franklin, _Articles_Of_Belief_and_Acts_of_Religion_, Nov.20, 1728

(Obviously I don't count ideas like Rockist Scientist's as anywhere close to that, given that he seems basically spot-on about the political/theocratic bent of Islam, and that he has more than a shred of a clue about the mutability of religion as lived and in practice.)

but can't we/shouldn't we also acknowledge that an intolerant, violent streak of fundamentalist islam has seized the international stage and has to be confronted one way or another? in the same way that intolerant fundamentalist christianity needs to be confronted? the confusion here is that the newspaper pretty clearly was aiming at the former group, but was perceived and/or portrayed as aiming at the much larger mass of muslims. you can blame the newspaper for its broad brush and rhetorical cluster-bombing, but that doesn't mean its actual target didn't deserve the targeting.

The US, Britain, France and Iran were represented by caricatures of Bush, Blair etc. Israel was represented by a hook-nosed claw-handed shylock-like Jew.

The Board of Deputies has complained, but has yet to march on Regent's Park mosque demanding beheadings.

Oh, and over on Indymedia they've decided that Friday's protest was OBVIOUSLY just organised by neo-cons to discredit Islam and encourage an invasion of Iran.

I have absolutely no time for the first arguement, and very little for the second — had 500 people marched through London to the US embassy demanding an end to the "occupation" it would at least have made some sense, but screaming about death to those who mock Islam and protesting against a government because an independent newspaper printed something you don't like is just absurd, and no different to the BNP marching on a mosque in protest at the 7/7 bombings.

-- Matt DC (runmd...), February 3rd, 2006.

when the new statesman printed an anti-semitic image on the front page, was there a baying mob? the pic of a naked child would be outrageous *because it involved the exploitation of a child*. it's not a free speech issue.

actually, even this isnt true. we're talking about printing images of muhammed being a taboo that european society may or may not do well to gradually adopt. but paedophilia isnt an absolute, and is arguably a taboo introduced by the victorians (or gradually in the hundred or so years before the victorians). its actually not a bad comparison, because this is something that is seen as totally unacceptable in europe today, and not a free speech issue. but in the 1300s the imagery of children was quite different, not the appolonian innocent view of the last few hundred years.

so thats a great example of how free speech incorporates taboos.

A very fair point, and I'll concede I made my sarky edit not realising it was a muslim who'd written that article - I didn't read it properly.

xpost

actually, even this isnt true. we're talking about printing images of muhammed being a taboo that european society may or may not do well to gradually adopt. but paedophilia isnt an absolute, and is arguably a taboo introduced by the victorians (or gradually in the hundred or so years before the victorians). its actually not a bad comparison, because this is something that is seen as totally unacceptable in europe today, and not a free speech issue. but in the 1300s the imagery of children was quite different, not the appolonian innocent view of the last few hundred years.

so thats a great example of how free speech incorporates taboos.

-- terry lennox. (...)

i'm not sure how the fact that the taboo on paedophilia 'not being an absolute' is relevant. as things stand, it *is* a taboo -- and how do you feel about that? as things stand, the law is not subservient to the prohibition under islam against producing images of the prophet -- and how do you feel about *that*?

how do i feel about paedophilia being a taboo? im glad! but i still realise that it is a social construction, and not a particularly old one. but, in relation to muhammed, we're talking about 'only images', and it strikes me that there is some disingeneousness about this, so im just comparing to 'only images' which are also a social taboo, but one accepted by the british people

glad also! i'm not arguing for censorship. saying the paper was inflammatory and stupid for printing them*, and saying they should be banned are two different things

*we're only talking about some of the cartoons here anyway, i think some of them are fine

its only become considered as mistreatment over the last few hundred years. and, who is harmed by the taking of a photograph (if nothing is happening in the photograph but it is presented in a certain way?)

but the 'it's okay to mistreat a child in 1700' and the 'it's okay to publish pictures of same in 1700' things are still different -- the argument for free speech is one thing and the argument about mistreating children another, even if our attitudes to both do change over time.

if mistreatment of children is tolerated, so is the publication of photographs of their mistreatment. but it will never be the case that drawing a cartoon can harm someone; the *only* question there is of freedom to publish it.

xpost

this is turning into an episode of 'south park'

anyway, it shows its not as black and white as it seems!

I am a Muslim. I believe in and recite the Kalima. I am in a rage over the cartoons. I have managed to see them, since there are many sites now where they are available, and my rage is that they are an accurate representation. Political cartoons are wonderful. They are a mirror which cuts away the superficial and shows by exaggeration what the cartoonist sees as the heart of the issue.

There are no physical likenesses of the holy prophet, but there are certainly depictions. His life was meticulously recorded, as all Muslims are supposed to study and follow his example. So if a Danish newspaper commissions cartoonists to find an image of the Prophet Muhammad, where are they going to find the imagery to capture in their cartoons? They are going to see it in the face that the Muslim world presents. And it isn't pretty.

It is the face of the bomb ticking away above the brain, destroying reason. It is the face of the sword guarding repressed, hidden and frightened women. About a vision of paradise as a male voluptuous fantasy inspiring people to kill innocents and themselves. They could have shown other ugly scenes from state executions to anti-semitism and intolerance of other religions and viewpoints. The scariest image I saw was of the placards outside the Regent's Park mosque saying: "To Hell with free speech" and "Behead those who insult the prophet". The Qur'an and the Al-hadith are venerated and recited, but not read, studied and acted upon.
Rafiq Mahmood
Edinburgh

It seems some Muslims have failed to see the irony of the cartoons. They are, in my opinion, an accurate depiction of the view of Islam that the followers of Osama bin Laden have cultivated throughout the world. This view of the prophet as the precursor and instigator of the current actions of terrorists is the falsehood that Muslims should be most affected by.
Zahir Mirza
Gillingham, Kent

"They want to test our feelings," protester Mawli Abdul Qahar Abu Israra told the BBC.

"They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and to their newspapers," he said.

but what's the answer - are they extremists or not???

Monday February 6, 2006

Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.

The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.

Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

The only legitimate use of boycotts agsinst nations is when their laws and official government policy are noxious. The calls for boycotts amongst Muslims against Denmark are either politically naive or evil, which is to say that they still don't understand that the Danish government doesn't control or have the right to censure a privately owned media outlet or that they think that their feeling of offense is greater than the Danish people's right to have the right to free speech in their own country, in which case they can go fuck their hypocritical selves. A mass protest to call for an apology from the newspaper or the firing of the editorial board or whatnot I can understand but the kind of collective guilt that is being ascribed to the Danes is really scary to me and as ill founded as lumping together moderate and fanatical Muslims.

The comments about revisionism and anti-semitism being illegal in the Netherlands reminds me that I think all limits on free speech are misguided and lazy. Doesn't the very use of illiberal laws to defend a liberal institution undermine it? Also, imho, the real import and utility of free speech is not only that it provides an open market of ideas but that it also requires a society to actively and openly come to terms with its worst elements and tendencies. Outlawing hate speech doesn't make hate go away, it makes it go underground and 'right thinking' people are then tempted to think that they no longer need be vigilant against its venom. I haven't noticed that anti-hate speech laws have lessened European racism or depleted the numbers in nationalistic or neo-Nazi groups. They have merely given extremely illiberal people a sense of martyrdom and a liberal weapon to weild against their enemies.

more interestingly, cole also has a round-up of muslim reactions, showing how they vary from place to place and dissecting the ways the issue has gotten bound up with local/regional politics.

Contrary to what the article wrote it is most likely that the Conservatives, in an alliance with the Center Party, The Liberal Party and Christian Democrats will win the next election. I don't know where the author got that info from. However, the only reason they have a bigger chance of winning is because they moved drasticly to the left and the only party that could be described as socially conservative is the Christian Democrats.

Also, something that rarely is mentioned when immigration to Western Europe is discussed is that a lot of these countries have only had large scale immigration in the last 15-20 years! Geez! Give it some time to work.

"he's not a suicide bomber, he's a very silly boy"

Gives a chilling new meaning to the phrase "noose of light"

Are you worried he might right poetry?

Living in a small country where religion (christianity) has almost vanished during the past hundreds of years up until recently when it's becomimg a bigger issue again due to immigrants (christians, muslims, whatever -they are more religious than the average ethnic swede anyway), I see the publishing of the drawings from a different angle than most people in this thread.

It's ok to be religious but please keep it to yourself and don't let it show in everyday life is more or less what the big majority in Sweden feels. I realise that I live in a small corner of the world but as an example, here it would be impossible for the prime minister to mention God in his speech like George Bush does. If you like me, can't see anything coming from religion that couldn't be replaced ( and in a better way) with humanity, it is important being able to question the religions and their holy gods, prophets, scripts etc. If something is forbidden for a jew, it can't be applied on me. It's their right to live according to their belief as long as it doesn't inflict on the law but it doesn't mean that I, out of respect or whatever, shall do the same.

I don't hold many things holy and I think we have a right to bring subjects in religion up to create a debate, otherwise there's a risk that we leave to priests, imams, rabbies and others to TELL people what's right and wrong instead of thinking for themselves. This is what happened in a lot of countries in the west during hundreds of years when they (priests) were looked upon as halfgods by common people.

I think it's a very good thing when the swedish church or what the bible says is being questioned. I also think it's good when it's done in a way that the church and their followers find offensive. This way of bringing shit in christianity up has helped to throughout the years make the swedish church accept female priests and the right for homosexuals to have their partnership sanctioned in a church. I believe that in the long run changes like this will make christianity less religious. (I hope you understand what I mean, my vocabulary and phrasing in english could be better I suppose). This artwork (http://www.katedral.vaxjo.se/KLASSRUM/re/Ecce.htm) that was shown in alot of places in Sweden some years ago is a good example. It made some christians furious or sad but it also made them discuss homosexuality and the different ways people might look upon Jesus.

Jyllans-Posten published 12 different cartoons with different meanings (as you already know, one of them was very critical to the newspaper itself) and they published them in a context: are muslim taboos something a non-muslim has to follow in fear of bodily harm? Of course they could have just ran a text about it but would there be a debate then? Because beside all the demonstrations, flagburning, embassyburning and all, there is a big debate going on in the world.