Denmark : Jesus with erection OK, but Mohammed Irk Muslims

Danish Cartoons of Prophet Irk Muslims By JAN M. OLSEN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 8 minutes ago

COPENHAGEN, Denmark - It was a provocative exercise: asking cartoonists to draw pictures of the Prophet Muhammad that were published in one of Denmark's largest papers.

But apparently no one at the Jyllands-Posten daily imagined the scale of the fallout: Death threats against the artists, protest strikes in Kashmir, condemnation from Muslim leaders worldwide and even criticism from the U.N.

"I'm very surprised that the reactions have been so sharp, very shocked, and I find the death threats against the cartoonists to be horrible and out of proportion," Carsten Juste, chief editor of Jyllands-Posten, told The Associated Press. He said the pictures were not meant to offend.

The paper refuses to apologize for publishing the drawings Sept. 30, citing freedom of speech — a right cherished in this northern European country of 5.4 million that also refused to prosecute an artist who depicted a crucified Jesus Christ with an erection.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051209/ap_on_re_eu/denmark_prophet_drawings

Muslim extremists are much worse than Christian extremists. I'd rather have no extremists though.

Personally, I believe that's more a function of the societies and countries from which they come. Christian extremists largely come out of the United States, where the discourse has at least advanced to the point that nobody is calling for death threats or promoting Crusades.

Muslim countries on the other hand, are overwhelmingly poor and politically undeveloped, where the discourse has NOT advanced. And you get people calling for death threats and militant jihad and the like.

Christian extremists largely come out of the United States, where the discourse has at least advanced to the point that nobody is calling for death threats or promoting Crusades.

What about Robertson's 'Patwas' and death threats vs. Dr's who perform abortions? What about threats vs. 'activist judges' on the floor of Congress (Shaivo case)? What about General Boykin's "our god is better than their god" speech of 2003?

On edit: what about the Professor in Kansas who was beaten up after cancelling a class on intelligent design? http://www.themaneater.com/article.php?id=22860

Robertson, Dobson, and Falwell are not as representative of modern Christianity as many militant and fundamentalist Muslim preachers are. I don't believe the Islamic faith is inherently any more intolerant than Christianity - religion is whatever people make of it. But as currently practiced, radical Islam is more regressive as a whole than fundamentalist Christianity. At least in modern Christianity, fundamentalists are ONE part of the equation, not the mainstream view. Yet even mainstream Islamic preachers are generally quite regressive. There are certainly exceptions, but they are not the general picture at present.

If you're going to champion a "big picture" stereotype, please think about these two points:

1. How do we know that our famous fundie preacher-characters aren't as representative of Christianity as the Imams we hear about in the news are representative of Islam? We hear about militant Imams in the news, news proven to be slanted towards the sensational. We don't know what actual percentage of Imams in the Muslim world spout militancy, nor do we know the number of followers these Imams actually influence, and so we can't really compare their overall militancy to that of Christian preachers.

2. Imams seem to have much more sway in the everyday lives of their followers/congregations than Christian preachers do, and from what I understand, they can make laws and judgements. In America, politicians and judges make laws and judgements. So I'd be more inclined to compare the people who make laws and judgements in one society to the people who make laws and judgements in another. Now, consider what wack-jobs we have making our laws and judgements (and consider that the wackiest are fundie Christians.) Not so different.

I responded to your comment that "discourse has evolved to the point that Christian extremists aren't calling for death threats or promoting crusades" and I gave you real-world examples of that being false. The only instance I cited which was about a famous preacher was Pat Robertson's fatwas, and they're broadcast 3x/day over a CBS channel. The remaining outrages are by followers. Creepy.

Oh, really? Have you listened to Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell recently? And what, precisely, are we doing in Afghanistan and Iraq? If a white, Christian, oil-rich country was ripe for the picking, do you think we'd invade them instead?

Christian fundies are only "not as bad" as Muslim fundies because they don't have as much power as the Islamic fundies. Yet. But boy do they want that power! They're angling for it! If the fundy contingent of the extreme RW gains more power, you will see more Patwas and more calls for killing and more calls for crusades.

What was it that Christ said?

Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam in thine own eye?

We have to look to our own nation's problems before we can address the problems of others. In fact, our own fundy problems have exacerbated the religious extremism in other nations.

On the one hand, they DO have and SHOULD have freedom of speech. I don't believe in absolute political correctness either. If the cartoonists want to express that point of view, they have a right to.

But it was quite a stupid move, and pretty insensitive. If they were going to publish this they should have been aware of what the outrage would have been. Frankly, most Muslims I know - even progressive or moderate Muslims - would have been very offended by this, as some seem to not only ridicule Muhummad, but tar the entire religion.

Not that that justifies death threats.

Still, a little tact might have been more constructive.

what can and can't be said or portrayed. Good for the cartoonists...I think they should repeat the excercise, perhaps it'll desensitize these religious idiots a bit.

I also don't give a rats ass about cultural sensitivity either...people have got to get a grip on reality. You cannot dictate my right of expression...I don't care whether you find it offensive or not.

They're allowed to say what they want and they should be allowed to say what they want. And the death-threat reaction is certainly way over-the-top and wrong. But people have a right to be offended as well. And just because one has the right to expression doesn't mean somebody else can't say that a particular expression of that right is tactless.

representations of Muhammed. None. NEVER. In fact, the more extreme and conservative Muslims do not go for any representations of any living creatures under any circumstances, and that includes TV or photographs.

Muslims are the ones--as though they differ from others--with the problem of representation of the Prophet. In actual fact, the Sunnis are more mellow than the Shi'a on a number of fronts, and the Shi'a are often more rabid on matters of religious idolatry (though the Persian carpet may feature the odd bird).

I've been in mosques on Friday night over in that end of the world, where kids were running around playing, women were off in the corner cooking food on sterno stoves, and all sorts of activities were going on, while off to the side, a bunch of guys were lined up like they were taking jazzercize and beating themselves bloody with chains.

This sort of thing is not standard behavior in a western church, and if a group went into St. Patrick's and started cooking rice in the corner and beating themselves, they'd be arrested. It's just a question of understanding the point of view...!

Sunni. Those influenced by Wahhabi aren't typically Shi'a, whom Wahhabi considered apostate, and the term 'Salafi' doesn't typically, in English at least, adhere to the Shi'a very well.

There are many flavors of Shi'a and Sunni thought, and this particular foul taste is primarily Sunni.

as an image, be it a cartoon, a painting or even a respectful statue or sculpture. It simply isn't done. This proscription crosses sectarian lines. That was my sole point.

When you read the article, threats of violence aside, it gives the sense that the Sunni have a problem with it, which in turn suggests, through sheer lack of clarification, that others do not.

And that is not so.

But you're right that for the prophet and religious figures it just isn't done.

The old loaf of bread, jug of wine, deal. But in the architecture of the masjids and public buildings, you will not see any--it's all abstract and geometric. And in the last few decades, they have gotten even fartier about it. You will see the odd bird, and occasionally this four legged thing that is not a camel, not a dog, in the carpets (dogs are not very welcome over there: the expression seed of the dog is a huge insult!) but never a person!

For reasons inexplicable, they don't seem to mind photographs, especially in demonstrations...and the spray-on stencil of the outline of Khomeini was very popular when he was making his tapes in exile in Iraq. It looked a lot like this guy:



So of course some enterprising western contractor HAD to cut a stencil and run around his neighborhood stencilling ZIG ZAG under the Khomeini stencil. This took off as a popular goof and one saw it everywhere. I had many Iranians ask me what it meant; I feigned cluelessness...figured it was easier than trying to suggest that some pothead was mocking the religious leader.

I misinterpreted your post to make a slightly different point. There are quite a few that have almost a reflex reaction to anything than can possibly be taken as anti-Islamic.

was damn GOOD, oder?

but I rarely had a bad meal in a home, anyway. Restaurants are hit or miss--some great, the touristy ones are frequently disappointing.

And a fascination with human Roles is the main element of porn,Politics is sometimes pornographic and I believe this is Political Porn, which isn't a crime, though repuke rs try to il-legalize it in America.

I wonder what have happened if they had depicted Mohammed with an erection...

Also, I find most of the "art" centered around the human body to be mainly perversion. I guess I'm just old fashioned.

"The paper's culture editor, Flemming Rose, came up with the idea after the author of a children's book on religion said its illustrator demanded anonymity because he feared retaliation for a picture of the prophet.

Juste said the newspaper's intention "was to examine whether people would succumb to self-censorship, as we have seen in other cases when it comes to Muslim issues." Twelve artists participated."

it's an exercise in freedom of expression

erosion of Our Intellect as a people, and I'm speaking about u.s. now.

I can get into a discussion with what I consider proper or improper, but it's pointless because it's just my opinion; however, with respect to freedom of speech, I do have a very strong position to make: They should be allowed to express themselves.

Why? Because if today they are muzzled, someday I may wake up and find my freedom of expression is muzzled as well.

At least that's what I heard.

On edit: and not enough Christian Fundies read Danish papers... but what if FOX News published the Jesus w/ boner pic? Oooh, watch out.

and vice versa.

a monster salami.


M. van Heemskerck, Man of Sorrows, c. 1550
This is not the one discussed.

but the reaction is absurd.

Never apologize to religious freaks, Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, or whatever. They need to join the real world.