Danish embassy invaded - Part II

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Equality would mean that calls for violence against Muslims are treated the same as calls for violence against Jews. That blasphemy against the Jewish or Christian religion is treated the same as blasphemy against the Muslim religion (in the law) That is not what Im seeing.

If you think this is about "blasphemy" to most moderates and liberals (and Hell, most Muslims) you are being stupid. The imams who travelled to the ME circulated the pictures actually published with three others including ones showing Muhammed with pig nose. If it was JUST about blasphemy wouldn't having Muhammed's picture be enough? Why have to augment it with pictures of Muhammed with a pig nose? Could it be because it is about insulting Muslims and not blasphemy?

Obviously insulting muhammed is more blasphemous than portraying him.

Are you saying that a portrayal of an ordinary muslim holding a bomb would also create the same cries for censorship? Would a text statement "Most muslims support terrorism" be banned? Would a poll that shows that the majority in some particular muslim country supports OBL be banned?

The pig picture of course was not published by JP. Perhaps the Imams should be prosecuted for distributing such an insulting pic

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are you saying that a portrayal of an ordinary muslim holding a bomb would also create the same cries for censorship? Would a text statement "Most muslims support terrorism" be banned? Would a poll that shows that the majority in some particular muslim country supports OBL be banned?

The symbolism of Muhammed with a bomb turban is far worse than saying Muslims support terrorism or showing one with a bomb. It's saying that Islam is inherantly a violent religion and this violence has nothing to do with context (such as terrorism these days), but because Muhammed and his ilk wanted to kill people.

The symbolism of a negative portrayl of a leader of a religion is far greater than simply saying something. Saying most Catholics priests molest boys and showing Jesus do the same are vastly different things and would result in vastly different outcomes. Or Hell, look at what happened when a play had a gay Jesus.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Yes. You'll notice that the embassy-torchings generally involved only a few thousands of protestors. In Lebanon, the demo was originally planned to be peaceful, before a minority of the demonstrators started a riot. Many people in Lebanon think it was a political manipulation from Syria, in order to intimidate. You'll also notice that the other embassy-torching occured in Syria.

You also don't hear of the peaceful demonstrations, that occur in most Muslim countries, and that occur in several European countries with a large Muslim population.

Edit: don't get me wrong: I disapprove of these demos just like I'd disapprove of any demo that goes contrary to my agenda (anti-abortion demos, anti-gay-marriage demos etc.). However, the large majority of the demos are civilized, which is something worth reminding, apparently.

Just to point out - if someone holds an anti abortion demo, you'll still be able to reply with a prochoice demo, etc, etc. A demo against free speech, IF it succeeds, begins to cut off your means to respond. Thats why its in a class by itself.

IS has made this painfully clear. As he said, this isnt about blasphemy. Its about the right of someone to assert a connection between terrorism and Islam. Now I dont think Islam inevitably leads to terrorism, but I do think that to explain terrorism today you need to look in part to culture, and it isnt the automatic resort of the weak. IS, with his Am Rev reference seems to disagree. There are many people in the world who would like to vigourously deny that terrorism has ANY connection to Islam - they would assert that the Al Qaeeda ideology is not only not the only historic form of Islam or the dominant form of Islam (Which i think is correct, BTW) , they would deny it has any historic authenticity (which I think is incorrect) they would assert that all other terror done by muslims is merely a "natural response" to occupation. Now they may be right. They may be wrong. Id like to have the opportunity to explore and dicsuss it. Now I have my own views of the causes which are not the same as A. "terror" is the natural weapon of the weak deprived of justice or B. Its the natural fruit of Islam. But if A is going to be part of the dialogue, and it certainly is, here in the US even, and im sure in Europe too - then B has to be allowed in the dialogue. And if it can be allowed in words, than it can be allowed in charictures. If you think those charictures are wrong, make your own that respond to it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Are you saying that a portrayal of an ordinary muslim holding a bomb would also create the same cries for censorship? Would a text statement "Most muslims support terrorism" be banned? Would a poll that shows that the majority in some particular muslim country supports OBL be banned?

The symbolism of Muhammed with a bomb turban is far worse than saying Muslims support terrorism or showing one with a bomb. It's saying that Islam is inherantly a violent religion and this violence has nothing to do with context (such as terrorism these days), but because Muhammed and his ilk wanted to kill people.

The symbolism of a negative portrayl of a leader of a religion is far greater than simply saying something. Saying most Catholics priests molest boys and showing Jesus do the same are vastly different things and would result in vastly different outcomes. Or Hell, look at what happened when a play had a gay Jesus.

Showing jesus doing the same, as part of a criticism of Christianity should be legal. And saying that Islam is inherently a violent religion (as assertion which I think to be false, BTW) should also be legal. The way to respond is to show the whole vast history of Islam, not to censor.

[MOBIUS]

The point is, if one religion is protected from extreme caricature, then so should all...

[lord of the mark]

which religion is protected from extreme charicture? Certainly not Christianity or Judaism.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
charicture?

Obviously you read my post - so how could you misspell the word so badly!!?

[lord of the mark]

speling Nazi!


If mocking Judaism is banned, I guess this site would be illegal:

http://www.radix.net/~jbachman/SPTI/Schlitz-home.htm

You see mocking judaism is in fact a Jewish tradition, at least on Purim.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Showing jesus doing the same, as part of a criticism of Christianity should be legal. And saying that Islam is inherently a violent religion (as assertion which I think to be false, BTW) should also be legal. The way to respond is to show the whole vast history of Islam, not to censor.

In states that do respect free speech it is. But there are states in Europe that clamp down on free expression and say if it insults a religion or violates human dignity it should be struck down. In those states, censorship is only being treated equal.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


In states that do respect free speech it is. But there are states in Europe that clamp down on free expression and say if it insults a religion or violates human dignity it should be struck down. In those states, censorship is only being treated equal.

Can you name those states, and give me the text of those laws?

I know of no states in europe that ban insults to religion. I dont know if hate crimes laws there as vague as "violates human dignity"

[Pekka]

mobius, I hope you realize your analogue with your avatar is wrong. That targets Israel. The cartoons didn't target any single nation. Furthermore, your avatar does not attack Judaism. So, your point flied out of the window, as the analogue is not sound.

As for should you be able to have that avatar? Sure. I perfectly illustrates your failed logic

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Can you name those states, and give me the text of those laws?

I know of no states in europe that ban insults to religion. I dont know if hate crimes laws there as vague as "violates human dignity"

They are in the other thread. I quoted Danish criminal law (saying insulting statements to religion is a criminal offense) and the German Constitution (everything must conform to human dignity). As well as French hate speech law (incitment of hatred).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


They are in the other thread. I quoted Danish criminal law (saying insulting statements to religion is a criminal offense) and the German Constitution (everything must conform to human dignity). As well as French hate speech law (incitment of hatred).

I posted to that other thread as well. Which see.

[lord of the mark]

More cartoons

http://www.cagle.com/news/Muhammad/main.asp

[Pekka]

Putin TOTALLY sold out Europe. He said that the pics were offensive and that this would never happen in there. NO wonder, there's no private press there. He also hoped the govs of these nations would take some pressure action to make this OK.

Right... this would of course not be about him not understanding it, it's about the business in that region that is vital to the country. I kind of understand it, that's just the way things go. But still, sell out.