Discussion in 'Serious' started by rainbowbridge, 7 Jan 2015.
forum_user, was the fire going out? are you sure?
At the risk of sounding inflammatory though, why should secular satirists give a flying **** about what muslims think of their little cartoons, any more than they do politicians, christians or radical feminists etc? If their actions were causing actual perceived harm to the "victims" then that's one thing, but to mock someone's ideology is a fundamental right and one that my very own recent ancestors died to preserve - as I'm sure yours did.
As Shirty described it (sorry post slipped to the next page)
Really ? The difference would be the incitement law that got abolished in 2008, "It consisted of persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime"
Indeed, my thoughts exactly.
Where we may differ though is that i feel it should be society that dictates what is, or isn't acceptable and not the government.
I'm inclined to agree.
Also, what is it about the image that actually causes offence?
Because the Qu'ran makes a nonspecific reference to creating idols, once. Somewhere along the line folks got a bit carried away.
OK: why should we care about our fellow human beings? Think about it.
So if we decide to care about our fellow human beings, what should that include? Their welfare and physical wellbeing? Their psychological wellbeing? Their identity? Their feelings? Their needs, dreams and aspirations? The things they cherish and hold dear? Should that include sentimental objects? Spiritual ones? What should we include and what should we ignore?
We don't have to agree with each other. We just have to exercise some mutual care and respect. I don't respect religion much, but I respect the human for who it may be an important part of their being. It means so little to me whether or not I draw a cartoon mocking Jesus, Mohammed or Buddha, but it means so much to them. Should I therefore not make the smaller sacrifice of self-restraint?
Psychologists rarely get consulted in the writing of laws. Just look at the mess that is the legal definition of "Mental Capacity". Like you I agree that society should dictate what is acceptable exercise of freedom of speech, not government. That also means that society should decide what is incitement.
Islam's rule against the depiction of the prophets (which include Abraham and Jesus as well as Mohammed) was basically a rule against idolatry. Mohammed proclaimed that he wanted no images made of him lest people might start worshipping his image, and hence him, rather than Allah. "I am not God; I am just a man". How this rule is applied varies across different branches of Islam. For some, any depiction is a no-no. Others got around it by depicting him only from behind, so his face is not visible. Other imagery depicts him as seen from the front or side but with the face left blank.
Generally the prohibition of the depiction of idols led in Arab culture to the use of complex geometric patterns as decoration instead. These would in time come to inspire William Morris' designs seen on Victorian Arts and Crafts wallpaper and tiles.
I'm with you 100% Nexxo. But 99.9% of muslims can take it on the chin, see the attempted humour an move on. If 0.01% of transgender activists committed brutal atrocities due to the perceived rough treatment, that wouldn't constitute the basis of an argument that you can't take the piss out of them if you want to.
I care deeply about my fellow humans (in a very passive way) but things would only get messy if someone caused harm to my nearest and dearest. For a secularist, this has to be an actual person rather than a made-up one. Hence the bafflement at such deep offence taken to a drawing.
Also by your own admission those who commit these crimes are usually very mentally unstable, and their views and actions are not supported by the established religion they claim to represent.
Well, Muslim leaders appealed for calm and tolerance, so they seem to be learning: it doesn't matter how offended you feel, or how important to you is the thing that you feel is disrespected. You are not entitled to kill people over it.
Let's see if we learn as well: this is not about what freedoms we have, but how we choose to use them. If we use our freedom of speech in a wilful act of disrespect just so we can show how sardonically witty and louche we are, then I would say we are devaluing our hard-won freedom of speech and all the people who fought and died for it.
Totally. But I just don't think humorous depictions of a meta-historical prophet should be the yardstick for tolerance in 2015 Europe.
Actual bad things are happening in the world, people seem to forget that in their emotional responses to unfortunate situations such as the Hebdo killings. Liberty is not in danger here - yet - but is under threat of extinction all over the world.
A lot of Syrian families trapped in refugee camps would gladly draw a humorous picture of their prophet every day for the rest of their lives if they could just end their suffering.
Well, you'd be surprised actually (rule 1 of psychology: people are ****ed. They do exactly the opposite of what you'd logically and rationally expect them to do). Some Syrians may indeed have lost their faith totally, and Mohammed may mean nothing to them anymore. Most will cling even harder to it because it's the only mental anchor they've got left in a hellish chaos utterly bereft of any sense or humanity.
A few of those may sign up to ISIS. In an insane world it offers order, structure, someone to blame. In an insane world it may seem like a rational choice.
cue cartoon strip of a squad of beat up infantrymen, surrounded by heavily armed men with beards, telling each other "if you get out and I don't, make sure my family draw cartoons about these guys having a gay leader and post them on the internet, promise me, man, it's the only reason I came"
(yes, I know it's not funny, it's satire)
I guess I was saying that I'm a bit shocked to see people here saying that they should not print images that annoy some people BECAUSE the terrorists objected enough to kill them. By that logic every time a bomb goes off we have to change policy to suit the bombers.
It's interesting to read back the number of times they've printed the Prophet. In 2012 a picture of a naked Prophet was published. I've enjoyed pushing my boundaries over the years, but that sounds like the ultimate leap of faith ...
Do you care about enough that printing pictures of the Prophet can upset Muslims?
To some people, their nearest and dearest is God. Things got messy.
Suggesting the Prophet or any God are "made-up" is fine. You are not baffled though. Like the rest of us you think it's taking things waaaaaaay too far. But the cartoonists knew this. They tested, and tested, and tested ... They even ignored the offices getting burnt out with a petrol bomb.
Arrogance, and stupidity. Then to run the Prophet on the front cover again ... saying a big F U to the Muslims who don't want the Prophet's image to be abused.
Don't get me wrong, I hate that they murdered the people. And I'm totally not religious!
I'm saying if Muslims don't want the Prophet to be depicted, and they certainly don't want the Prophet to be used for this hilarious (not) satire ... I say don't do it. Show some respect to them. I'm also saying I gave my support AGAINST the murders, but after ANOTHER front page, it's an act of stupidity and arrogance.
Lets be perfectly honest, why are they using the image of the Prophet in the first place? For comedy, or a reaction?
It's not about the terrorists --although defiance will not stop their behaviour any more than compliance. It's about us: setting ourselves apart from the terrorists.
The terrorists demand respect for their beliefs, but have none for other people's. It's not like they're going: "You respect our religion, and we'll let you get on with your secular or Christian ways". Especially ISIS regards it as an integral practice of their faith to kill infidels (whereas Al-Qaida is more inclined to let infidels get on with it, as long as they do not do it on Muslim soil).
So the way to distinguish ourselves from them is not through antagonism but tolerance. We're not fundamentalists who just happen to bat for the Christian God; we are not fundamentalists, period.
Many Muslims are taking a similar stance. Some actually have the "Je Suis Charlie" sign in their shop window. Others walk side by side with other protestors against terrorism. Some hand out flowers of peace. Many condemn the terrorist attack. So what do we do? Do we stand alongside them as tolerant people respectful of other people's lives and beliefs? Or do we publish more cartoons mocking their prophet to show how defiant we are? What is the wiser action, the one that is most likely to lead to mutual friendship and tolerance, the one that is most likely to thwart the terrorists?
It doesn't matter why they are doing it. For the record, I am indifferent to satire, I like to laugh at my comedy.
In 1940 France was invaded by and occupied by Germany. That was the start of a chain of events that led to the secular state they enjoy today. The cartoonists are well within their legal and moral rights to take the piss out of islam, clowns and your mother - and everything in between.
Nobody has the right to take a life. To do so over drawings is baffling, whatever the history and reasons.
Is printing a cartoon of something a demonstration of intolerance? Not in my opinion. To tolerate something is to respect the fact that it exists and allow it to continue existing, but that doesn't prohibit having a bit of fun with it, does it? If it does, IDWTLITWA.
It is, but they did, so that's that for people's rights. The question is: how are we going to respond to it in a way that brings mutually respectful and tolerant people together and disavows the terrorists?
Humanity, compassion and indeed society happen not when people demand their rights, but when they consider those of others.
Decide who we don't like and put something in their water to make all the men impotent?<--this is not a serious suggestion
bbc news said Al Qaeda have claimed responsibility, showed the video. I call "liar liar", tbh.
I'm bowing out.
But one final thought for me is why print the Prophet. Just that.
Because he's not their prophet?
And people purporting to represent the faith which features said prophet are currently running riot over large swathes of the Middle East, killing everything in their bloody path? Terrorising families and communities?
The reality is that whilst many Muslims are quietly offended by depictions of their prophet, they ain't killing people because of it. In fact, many of them sort of get it - even if they don't find it amusing - which is very cool indeed.
Separate names with a comma.