Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Denmark, Muslims, and THOSE cartoons

Recommended Posts

This is not so in Catholicism or Christianity generally. Many families raise their children as Christians, but when their kids reach their teens, they reject the beliefs and values of their parents and construct their own. This is a normal feature of adolescent development and is well documented within psychology texts. But many Muslim adolescents dont appear to follow this pattern. Why? Fear obviously. How healthy is that?

 

Christianity, tends to be a rather liberal faith. I would take issue about the catholic element though, as the guilt instilled in people from a very young age can and doe's permeate into adult life and creates dysfunctional people. Obviously, this doesn't apply to everyone.,The fundamental elements of the Christian church are on a par with Islam. Take a look at the evangelical movement in America. It's frightening how so many gullible people feel the need to embrace a far more deadly drug than heroine. One other small point to mention, worldwide, billions are being made in the name of religion. The money is being given by the many and ending up in the hands of the few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a strong believer in freedom of speech. However I think there is still a place for decency and respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider one possibility:

 

Islam, in some countries, is still at the stage of control and belief that European Christianity was during the times of the Inquisition and later the Puritans.

 

During those times it was impossible to talk against "the church" and their teachings.

 

It took us centuries to move beyond that. I believe that those moves can be described as "forwards".

 

To start to accept the replacement of rational thought with dogma can only be regarded by me as a step backwards.

Perhaps a large number of the world do not think the same as me, but I do believe that I am where I am today by virtue of my ancestors' struggles.

 

I will not say that it is correct to deliberately antagonise people of a different faith but, please, do not insist that I roll over and accept their values which have been unacceptable to me and my ancestors for such a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be much confusion (possibly deliberately by some people) as to the roots of the current furore.

 

From the wikipedia article on this issue (To which I will not link as it is showing the cartoons - as is masses of the blogosphere) and which is repeated in many other places to confirm.

 

"Debate about self-censorship

 

On September 17, 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article under the headline "Deep fear of criticism of Islam". The article discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was initially unable to find an illustrator who was prepared to work with Bluitgen on his children's book "The Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad's life". Three artists declined Bluitgen's proposal before an artist agreed to assist anonymously. According to Bluitgen:

 

One [artist declined], with reference to the murder in Amsterdam of the film director Theo van Gogh, while another [declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute in Copenhagen. [in October 2004, a lecturer was assaulted by five assailants who opposed the lecturer's reading of the Qur'an to non-Muslims during a lecture at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen[3]].

 

The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence of self-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark, with other examples for similar reasons soon emerging. The comedian Frank Hvam declared that he did not dare satirise the Qur'an on television, while the translators of an essay collection critical of Islam also wished to remain anonymous due to concerns about violent reaction.

 

Publication of the drawings

 

On September 30, 2005, the daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten published an article titled "Muhammad's face". The article consisted of 12 satirical drawings of Muhammad and an explanatory text, in which Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's culture editor, commented:

 

The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always equally attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is less important in this context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him. [...]"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are all 'values' equal, or are some better - is there an objective standards by which we can judge that some values are superior to others?

 

Some societies believe in female circumcision. It is a part of their culture. Can we say that because our culture says that is wrong that we are better, more advanced than them?

 

Or should all cultures, their beliefs & practices, be given equal weight? Is freedom of expression objectively superior to religious belief when the two come into conflict?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are all 'values' equal, or are some better - is there an objective standards by which we can judge that some values are superior to others?

 

Some societies believe in female circumcision. It is a part of their culture. Can we say that because our culture says that is wrong that we are better, more advanced than them?

 

Or should all cultures, their beliefs & practices, be given equal weight? Is freedom of expression objectively superior to religious belief when the two come into conflict?

 

You refer to "values" and "societies" in the plural and possibly this comes to the root of the matter.

 

Globalisation (including television) has shrunk the boundaries of "societies".

 

I could not care less whether someone puts a cartoon depicting Jesus in a newspaper in Saudi Arabia.

 

But, I do know that I would die if I spat upon a religious image in that same country.

 

It is time that we started to undo the belief that all the world is the same.

 

Recognise our differences and give respect where it is due.

 

I have lived in many countries and can assure you that, at the level of being "house neighbours" we all have the same concerns and objectives.

 

We were (I would like to say are, but am not sure) respected for our standards and were recognised as being Christian. Nothing wrongwith that.

 

Today, the respect is almost gone.

One reason is that we have not stood by our standards and values. They were respected by one religion to another.

 

What do we have to offer?

A divisive society without a cohesive foundation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do we have to offer?

A divisive society without a cohesive foundation.

 

But do we claim our values are 'better', or only 'equal'? What I'm asking is whether we can claim that our values (or some of them at least) are 'better', & if there is some objective standard to which we can appeal, or if cultural (& moral) relativism are the order of the day. And if there is no objective standard to which appeal can be made when there is a conflict is it just going to be a question of who is more powerful, or who is prepared to be most violent?

 

In short, is there shuch a thing as RIGHT & WRONG?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But do we claim our values are 'better', or only 'equal'? What I'm asking is whether we can claim that our values (or some of them at least) are 'better', & if there is some objective standard to which we can appeal, or if cultural (& moral) relativism are the order of the day. And if there is no objective standard to which appeal can be made when there is a conflict is it just going to be a question of who is more powerful, or who is prepared to be most violent?

 

In short, is there shuch a thing as RIGHT & WRONG?

 

There is such a thing as right and wrong, and that is largely what religion is all about. Most religions and societies have the same basic ethics.

 

Ghandi proved that you don't have to be violent, sometimes if your right you will win eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that, what you refer to as, relativism, can only lead to conflict.

Avoidance of conflict can be achieved in recognition of "difference".

 

I have been brought up in this country and can recognise the historical reasons for our development.

 

However, I can understand that people brought up and educated in other countries and under different regimes and religions can have a different viewpoint.

 

Right or Wrong?

Let them be different! Stop trying to make us all the same!

 

Our fundementalists say that Islam is wrong. Their fundementalists say that Christianity is wrong. It is the polititions and religious leaders that choose to exploit those differences.

 

Stop shouting the odds.

Stop giving in to those who choose to shout louder.

Fully implement the existing laws of this country without favour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole subject has peed me off over a period of a few days, The real crux of the matter is that a Danish cartoonist portrayed an image of Allah in a way that was percieved to be disrespectful to followers of the muslim faith.

 

Ok, point taken. If I might put forward the proposition: What makes the islamic faith so solid that it may not be parodied in any way? Is the supposedly true word of God so fragile that it cannot withstand a satirical cartoon in a newspaper? Somehow, I think not. The real problem is the followers of the faith who dislike their point of view being challenged in even the smallest way and therefore see it as a prime opportunity to storm an embassy, burn a flag and let off a couple of rounds from the nearest available AK47.

 

If true moral outrage was indeed the key issue then why is Al-Jazzrea (a self awowed muslim TV station) allowed to broadcast pictures of western hostages being beheaded without so much as a peep from the spokespeople when by the same hand they condemn a harmless cartoon lampooning a deity.

 

I have seen many varied parodies of the last supper and of the cruxifixion, have I seen ramaging hordes of christians pillaging everything in their wake? No, I think it's time that by large the muslim faith started to grow up and accept that they are living in the 21st century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If true moral outrage was indeed the key issue then why is Al-Jazzrea (a self awowed muslim TV station) allowed to broadcast pictures of western hostages being beheaded without so much as a peep from the spokespeople when by the same hand they condemn a harmless cartoon lampooning a deity.

 

I have seen many varied parodies of the last supper and of the cruxifixion, have I seen ramaging hordes of christians pillaging everything in their wake? No, I think it's time that by large the muslim faith started to grow up and accept that they are living in the 21st century.

 

I think it's known as the ' I'm right, you're dead philosophy'. What concerns me are the memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This whole subject has peed me off over a period of a few days, The real crux of the matter is that a Danish cartoonist portrayed an image of Allah in a way that was percieved to be disrespectful to followers of the muslim faith.

 

Ok, point taken. If I might put forward the proposition: What makes the islamic faith so solid that it may not be parodied in any way? Is the supposedly true word of God so fragile that it cannot withstand a satirical cartoon in a newspaper? Somehow, I think not. The real problem is the followers of the faith who dislike their point of view being challenged in even the smallest way and therefore see it as a prime opportunity to storm an embassy, burn a flag and let off a couple of rounds from the nearest available AK47.

 

If true moral outrage was indeed the key issue then why is Al-Jazzrea (a self awowed muslim TV station) allowed to broadcast pictures of western hostages being beheaded without so much as a peep from the spokespeople when by the same hand they condemn a harmless cartoon lampooning a deity.

 

I have seen many varied parodies of the last supper and of the cruxifixion, have I seen ramaging hordes of christians pillaging everything in their wake? No, I think it's time that by large the muslim faith started to grow up and accept that they are living in the 21st century.

 

Erm, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

But this whole saga is refering to cartoon images of the Prophet Mohammed. He is a Prophet and not a deity.

 

Also the Christian faith has been making images of Jesus and God for centuries. In Islam it is forbidden. You can't really make a comparison.

 

Change takes time. Perhaps the West needs to be a little more understanding and sensitive. Conflict arises when a culture is forced to change to quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.