I apologize to you on behalf of 'Muslims'

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Winston

I can assure you Zkribbler, that this particular cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard, was not out to "see if he could enrage other people". I've known and appreciated his drawings for decades, and as I've stated earlier, this one with the guy having a bomb for a turban, was first published in Jyllands-Posten prior to the special "The face of Muhammed" (the 12 cartoons, which is the centre of this controversy) in another context, and re-used for the special, as was another of the 12, since both of these cartoonists are part of the editorial cartoonist group with Jyllands-Posten.

Satire, such as this, is about commenting on things, not about pissing people off. That's part of our culture too, here in Denmark.

Now, I'm confused.

I haven't seen the spread, but ABC News stated the guy with the bomb-turban is supposed to be Mohammed. You post seems to say that originally he wasn't, but in the "special" the drawing was recast as Mohammed.

If it's supposed to be Mohammed, then it was a stupid, callous thing to publish. And what's the point of this "satire"? Falsely portraying the prophet isn't satire as I see it.

If it's supposed to be the "face of Islam," that's another matter. While it is true, most Muslims are gentle peaceloving people, the growing perception of much of the world is that they're crazy bombers. This stereotype is at least something to talk about.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Hehe. No. 'The Grand Poobah' comes via the Flintstones from Gilbert and Sullivan

origin detailed here

[VetLegion]

Winston, is Jyllands-Posten a right wing newspaper?

[Berzerker]

polarnomad

I doubt it, but it certainly makes you somewhat arrogant and disrespectful.

No more guilty of arrogance than anyone else who has reached a conclusion about the nature of God. As for dis-respect, religions that kill people for "blasphemy" dont deserve respect. Do Muslim fundies respect people's freedom? Hardly...

Don't remember ever doing any of the aforesaid congratulating. However, I have noticed that many on these boards freely flail around with disdain and disrespect.

Usually its Christianity taking the jabs for its bloody history, but do you respect Muslim fundies issuing fatwas on authors? Tell me all about this respect you have for A-holes killing or enslaving people in the name of God.

I find it annoying when someone, who obviously feels bad about the actions of people supposedly representing his faith, gets brushed aside as he goes out of his way and displays restraint when posting on this forum so as not to irritate the seeming majority of western members of this forum. His respectful approach is greeted with disrespect. Makes me want to apologize to him!

Then do so, and then explain why your apology matters...because it doesn't anymore than moustafa's apology... Now, Jesus condemned all the ritual crap. Are you going to criticise him too? If so, wont you be dis-respecting his religion? I find it annoying when people brush aside the evils committed in God's name and save their BS for the critics of these so-called religions. We have duly noted your "tolerance" for Islamic thugs.

[Winston]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Winston, is Jyllands-Posten a right wing newspaper?

Yes.

Depending on the definition, that is. It is non-affiliated with any political party, and has as its editorial basis a Liberal (traditional European sense) point of view. It is owned by a foundation whose profit is distributed for publically beneficial purposes, and it says in its staute that "Jyllands-Posten is to be published as a daily Liberal newspaper, independent of private, commercial, organizational and party-political interests."

It was first published in 1871, and is now the newspaper with the biggest circulation in Denmark.

On its website, the Editor states that "the Liberal platform, which is the foundation for publishing the paper, means that Jyllands-Posten favours a freedom-oriented view of life, a tolerant and humanitarian view of the individual, and a democratic and socially responsible view of society."

To perhaps give you a more straightforward idea of its political leaning, let me reveal that I myself have been a faithful subscriber to Jyllands-Posten for over 15 years, until recently, and have just started a new subscription to it, in part caused by this situation we're debating here.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Now, I'm confused.

I haven't seen the spread, but ABC News stated the guy with the bomb-turban is supposed to be Mohammed. You post seems to say that originally he wasn't, but in the "special" the drawing was recast as Mohammed.

I don't see what's so confusing. Westergaard made the drawing, as I recall it as a vignette for a feature article submitted to the letters-to-the-editor pages of the paper. This was well in advance of it appearing in the 30 September 2005 special "The face of Muhammed".

The paper invited a large groop of cartoonists, including Westergaard (who is permanently with the paper) to submit their version of "the face of Muhammed" or as it was put in the invitation "how they viewed Muhammed".

Westergaard submitted the previously published drawing as his bid. Whether it was intended to portray Muhammed at its original publication, only Westergaard would know. But as he submitted it again for the special, it appeared as his "view of Muhammed".

Satire really loses some of its appeal when you have to attempt dissecting and explaining the motivations behind it.

Again, satire as we know and love it here in Denmark isn't out to piss people off. It takes on the form of a commentary to a political situation, a news story, or any other matter of general public interest.

In this context, it appeared as part of an exercise to see if self-censorship among editorial cartoonists was prevalent when tasked with satirizing topics related to Islam. The fact that only 1 in 4 of the cartoonists invited for the special accepted - and not least the pursuing developments, including the gross misrepresentation of the matter by Danish Muslim clerics on a tour of the Arab world 3 months later, which unleashed the madness we're witnessing now - seems to indicate that the paper might have good cause to focus on self-censorship in the first place.

[VetLegion]

Thanks for the clarifications Winston. I really appreciate having a Dane here to explain these things. And that you were subscribed indeed tells me much

Did you comment the link from the Norwegian newspaper that said that Jyllands-Posten previously refused to publish some offensive anti-Christian cartoons? What do you think about that?

[Winston]

You're welcome.

It has been mentioned in the Danish debate also, but I haven't paid much attention to it, nor have I investigated into it, since it is my opinion that it is immaterial to the present situation, and basically an ill-conceived attempt by some people to throw suspicion on a newspaper whose political leanings they have always disagreed with.

I also recognize that editorial decisions in different situations is the sovereign right of any newspaper, including Jyllands-Posten.

They're not a paper who's constantly on a crusade against all of the major religions, no. They weren't attacking against Christianity then, and they're not attacking against Islam now.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Az
Thing is, it's not "acting responsibly" it's"being chicken**** and not standing up for the truth".

Truth? I don't see depicting Mohammed with a bomb on his head is the truth.

Originally posted by Az
Again, a reiteration - it was a part of a debate on self-censorship when dealing with Islam.they thought had a problem, as a part of the article, the published these cartoons, and guess what, they were right, they had a problem. It was pretty much ****ing spot on.

If they put cartoons such as Jesus molesting little kids or God cutting the heads of women off alongside - and not get an angry reaction from some Christian elements - I say it is spot on. As it stands now, it's just barely missed being a joke (or worse).

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Truth? I don't see depicting Mohammed with a bomb on his head is the truth.



If they put cartoons such as Jesus molesting little kids or God cutting the heads of women off alongside - and not get an angry reaction from some Christian elements - I say it is spot on. As it stands now, it's just barely missed being a joke (or worse).

I don't think there is anything no matter how profane and repugnant that could be published that would provoke acts of violence by christians as a response to that mere act of expression. I say this simply because I can't remember a single case in my lifetime of such violence by christians in response to some offensive expression or statement.


Violence by christians who believe the violence to be endorsed by their christian beliefs seems to have turned up only by marginalized solitary offenders who burn down abortion clinics and the like. Those same solitary wackos don't seem to have been at all motivated to attack the producers of south park or other blatanetly blasphemous entertainment.

In modern times, violence as a form of vigiliante censorship appears to arise in islamic extremists but not among the extremists of any other major religions.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Geronimo


I don't think there is anything no matter how profane and repugnant that could be published that would provoke acts of violence by christians as a response to that mere act of expression. I say this simply because I can't remember a single case in my lifetime of such violence by christians in response to some offensive expression or statement.

Yeah -- it was all sunny and rosy between Irish Protestants and Irish Catholics in the 1990s, wasn't it?

There is no such thing as violent Christian extremists -- except for abortion clinic bombings and murders of abortion doctors.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If they put cartoons such as Jesus molesting little kids or God cutting the heads of women off alongside - and not get an angry reaction from some Christian elements - I say it is spot on. As it stands now, it's just barely missed being a joke (or worse).

But the cartoons are satire. Part of it is a joke.

There has been work showing the virgin Mary in feces. It created an uproar, but nothing near the level of this. There's also ton of crap showing Jesus in an unfavorable light, but it doesn't get much attention because most people don't care.

For the best example, just look at your comments regarding christianity on this forum. They often go beyond insulting the religion, but the culture as well. Yet, no one has asked for your head, and there are a lot of nutties here.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DaShi
there are a lot of nutties here.

There are?

[DaShi]

Yes, and you know who they are!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DaShi
Yes, and you know who they are!

I can only think of maybe one or two right now -- I won't mention names though.