Danish Muslims despair at portrayal

[Whatsthepoint]

Yes but in Denmark blasphemy is also forbidden yet apperantly they dont see the cartoons as blasphemy, even though muslims seem to be extremly offended, more than ever in fact!

They have the right to put the case on trial, which they did...and lost.

 

[krypton6]

Where do you originally come from?

I'm pretty much Iraqi, but even a saud, egyptian or african can say the same thing, only that what they say would sound more like: a man is ruining our country and we cant stop him because america keeps helping him.

 

[krypton6]

They have the right to put teh case in trial, which they did...and lost.

It doesnt matter! There's no doubt that muslims were highly insulted by this, in fact they were insulted more than ever before.

Its blasphemy when it is clear that a surtain group seems extremly offended and insulted by some joke, cartoon, commercial, film or what ever. How could you say that this is not blasphemy? the fact the they lost in the court clearly proves that the judge was anti-islamic and that he was a racist, and the fact that the government didnt do anything about it proves that they too are anti-islamic racists.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

It doesnt matter! There's no doubt that muslims were highly insulted by this, in fact they were insulted more than ever before.

Its blasphemy when it is clear that a surtain group seems extremly offended and insulted by some joke, cartoon, commercial, film or what ever. How could you say that this is not blasphemy? the fact the they lost in the court clearly proves that the judge was anti-islamic and that he was a racist, and the fact that the government didnt do anything about it proves that they too are anti-islamic racists.

Look, there has been plenty of blasphemy in Denmark, targeted mostly on the christian faiths, ranging from cartoons to movies, yet nobody has been put on trial for over 60 years.
It's not allways the result that matters, it's the intention. The judge seems to have concluded that the newspaper that originally posted the cartoons did not do it in order to insult muslims.
Why should the government do anything about it? Denmark is a free country with courts that deal with such matters. One islamic community sued the cartoonists (or was it the paper) and lost the case.
I see no reason why the danish government should do anything about it, let alone apologize.

Look, I know you must be terribly insulted with the cartoons, but that is not a sufficient reason to limit free speech.

 

[krypton6]

Look, there has been plenty of blasphemy in Denmark, targeted mostly on the christian faiths, ranging from cartoons to movies, yet nobody has been put on trial for over 60 years.

You got any examples? no christian have ever bin insulted the way that muslims have.

It's not allways the result that matters, it's the intention. The judge seems to have concluded that the newspaper that originally posted the cartoons did not do it in order to insult muslims.
Why should the government do anything about it? Denmark is a free country with courts that deal with such matters. One islamic community sued the cartoonists (or was it the paper) and lost the case.
I see no reason why the danish government should do anything about it, let alone apologize.

Look, I know you must be terribly insulted with the cartoons, but that is not a sufficient reason to limit free speech.

It doesnt matter if he did it to insult or not, fact is that it did insult more than any previous religous insult, and insulting a larger group of people religiously is what we call blasphemy, yet the judge didnt do anything about it and nor did the government. If a man kills a dog and is punished with 20 years in prison the government will step in and correct the sentence. It should have bin the same with these cartoons, yet they didnt do anything about it.

Muslims came here knowing all about the freedom of speech but at the same time believing that our religion would be respected, and that insulting someones religion or believe is not allowed in Denmark. But apparently that law excludes the insulting of muslims.

The whole muslim community inside of Denmark sued but due to racism they lost, the government refused to recognize the racism instead they kept saying the same bull**** over and over again ("Freedom of speech, freedom of speech!", yet forgetting to mention that what is most dear to every muslim was in fact insulted which afterall is what blashphemy is.

I'm not the one who is limiting freedom of speech, I'm just following their own dam laws and blasphemy is in the 140'th danish paragraph! If I am excluded in this law, then why shouldn't I exclude myself from any other law, such as the law preventing me from killing the cartoonist?

 

[Isambard]

You got any examples? no christian have ever bin insulted the way that muslims have.

I really hope you're joking. Try typing random verbs and nouns in front of Jesus on a google image search. Extra points for naughty finds!

It doesnt matter if he did it to insult or not, fact is that it did insult more than any previous religous insult, and insulting a larger group of people religiously is what we call blasphemy, yet the judge didnt do anything about it and nor did the government. If a man kills a dog and is punished with 20 years in prison the government will step in and correct the sentence. It should have bin the same with these cartoons, yet they didnt do anything about it.


How about they just declare Islam a dangerous cult and ban it completely? European countries have done it before and if you keep acting like an idiot and trying to set fire to things, its what youll get.

Muslims came here knowing all about the freedom of speech but at the same time believing that our religion would be respected, and that insulting someones religion or believe is not allowed in Denmark. But apparently that law excludes the insulting of muslims.

Its equally redundant for all people. See the citation whatsthepoint made to the 0 cases in 60yrs. That said, why should the west in general "respect" Islam exactly? A quick search thru middle-eastern media forms and youll find all sorts of wonderfully hateful msgs. This of course is aside from the typical stereotypes you hear parroted (even here!) about jews being baby-stealers, western women being hoes, Hindus worshipping dolls etc etc.

This doesnt justify insults towrd Islam certainly (as not muslims do what I said above), but it does go back to "clean your own **** backyard before you complain about mine!"

The whole muslim community inside of Denmark sued but due to racism they lost, the government refused to recognize the racism instead they kept saying the same bull**** over and over again ("Freedom of speech, freedom of speech!", yet forgetting to mention that what is most dear to every muslim was in fact insulted which afterall is what blashphemy is.

They lost because the newspaper isnt controlled by the govt. Hence it wouldnt fall under the blasphomy charges. And since when is being Muslim a race? Dictionaries and not jumping to assumptions are the way to win the hearts of forum-lurkers friend.

I'm not the one who is limiting freedom of speech, I'm just following their own dam laws and blasphemy is in the 140'th danish paragraph! If I am excluded in this law, then why shouldn't I exclude myself from any other law, such as the law preventing me from killing the cartoonist?

Not understanding the law doesnt mean it wasnt followed. Stop crying or stop reading Danish papers. The choice is yours.

 

[Cognescenti]

If there is a blasphemy law in Denmark it is likely a slightly embarrasing historical oddity, sort of like laws regulating side arms inside the city limits or where one can tie up one's horse.

Also I am still having trouble understanding how one can blaspheme something in which one doesn't believe.

 

[snakelegs]

just because you can do something and be protected by freedom of speech, doesn't mean you should.
are there no better ways to test freedom of speech in denmark than to resort to stooping so low? maybe nobody has anything to say?

 

[Isambard]

just because you can do something and be protected by freedom of speech, doesn't mean you should.
are there no better ways to test freedom of speech in denmark than to resort to stooping so low? maybe nobody has anything to say?

How is it stooping low? Islam is inherently political in nature what with the laws, rulings, ideal state etc etc.

If you can make fun of Bush, why not Muhammed?

 

[Keltoi]

It is the protection of insulting and "low" speech that makes sure more worthwhile speech cannot be censored. It is only a small step from stating no newspaper can print cartoons deemed insulting by a particular group to no newspaper can print this, and then not this, and they really can't be doing that....see where this is going?

 

[snakelegs]

How is it stooping low? Islam is inherently political in nature what with the laws, rulings, ideal state etc etc.

If you can make fun of Bush, why not Muhammed?

not the same category at all. why would a rational adult want to insult somebody else's religion?
sorry, i don't get it.

 

[snakelegs]

It is the protection of insulting and "low" speech that makes sure more worthwhile speech cannot be censored. It is only a small step from stating no newspaper can print cartoons deemed insulting by a particular group to no newspaper can print this, and then not this, and they really can't be doing that....see where this is going?

somehow i just don't see this as a free speech issue. i think the motive has nothing to do with free speech, but with a desire to deliberately provoke.
in theory what you have written makes sense - but common decency and respect makes more sense.

 

[Isambard]

not the same category at all. why would a rational adult want to insult somebody else's religion?
sorry, i don't get it.

Its the specific religion's fault for hiding politics. Islam and Christianity get bashed regularly because they contain political ideas. Compare that to a more apolitical religion like Buddhism.

There is also the threat of a politicized religion forming a cult around an individual in which case bashing religion being a taboo would be a bad thing. Such as the case historically.

 

[Muezzin]

Its the specific religion's fault for hiding politics. Islam and Christianity get bashed regularly because they contain political ideas. Compare that to a more apolitical religion like Buddhism.

There is also the threat of a politicized religion forming a cult around an individual in which case bashing religion being a taboo would be a bad thing. Such as the case historically.

Or it's just general douchebaggery, depending.

Which is of course, fully protected by freedom of speech, lest we forget. People are legally entitled to be buttheads if they want to be. As long as other people call them out on their... buttheadedness, all's well.

Of course, what constitutes being a butthead depends on your point of view. From my point of view, these particular cartoons, while insipid, tasteless and unfunny, did not in anyway justify such a violent reaction.

Southpark is my kind of insipid tastelessness, mainly because it's actually funny.

 

[Keltoi]

somehow i just don't see this as a free speech issue. i think the motive has nothing to do with free speech, but with a desire to deliberately provoke.
in theory what you have written makes sense - but common decency and respect makes more sense.

We agree, common decency and respect makes more sense...but who is going to enforce "common decency and respect"? Who would you trust to do that?

 

[snakelegs]

We agree, common decency and respect makes more sense...but who is going to enforce "common decency and respect"? Who would you trust to do that?

actually i would think you could trust any mature adult to respect boundaries. but of course, we both know better. :unhappy:

 

[snakelegs]

Its the specific religion's fault for hiding politics. Islam and Christianity get bashed regularly because they contain political ideas. Compare that to a more apolitical religion like Buddhism.

There is also the threat of a politicized religion forming a cult around an individual in which case bashing religion being a taboo would be a bad thing. Such as the case historically.

i don't really follow your arguement. in your previous post you compared insulting muhammad to insulting george bush. to me, these are like 2 different planets!
yes, both christianity and islam contain political ideas - but their prophets are religious figures, and command the respect from their followers that religious figures do - not politicians.
as a westerner, i do not really comprehend the depth of the respect muslims have for muhammad (and other prophets), but i know it is there, and i accept and respect it.

 

[Isambard]

i don't really follow your arguement. in your previous post you compared insulting muhammad to insulting george bush. to me, these are like 2 different planets!
yes, both christianity and islam contain political ideas - but their prophets are religious figures, and command the respect from their followers that religious figures do - not politicians.
as a westerner, i do not really comprehend the depth of the respect muslims have for muhammad (and other prophets), but i know it is there, and i accept and respect it.

Muhammed was a politician as much as he was a religious leader. That said, religion is merely a more convoluted form of politics. Alot of times, the two can be interchangeable.

Just because there may be a deep respect for someone, doesnt mean I should feel the same. Many people really respected Bush when he first went into Iraq. Look at what unquestioned dogmatism did.

If you feel more comfortable, look at scientology. It continues to hide from critisism of its political aims behind the curtain of "being religiously intollerant".

Seeing that Islam is political, there is no reason why it or any other religiously-masked political movements should be spared of satire.

 

[snakelegs]

islam does not "conceal" that it is also political.
i don't follow your reasoning and disagree with what you're saying.
no - you do not have to respect religious figures.
what you should respect is the feelings of your fellow human beings, whether you understand them or not.
this seems to me like just plain and simple decency.
btw - as a side note, is there any gathering of human beings that does not involve politics?

 

[Rana0614]

Hello all,
To express my opinions on this issue, I've copied and pasted an exerpt from my blog, regarding the issue.

" personally don't believe that the Danish published these cartoons to get this kind of reaction to them. I mean, who would want their country flag to be burned and stomped on, have parts of Danish embassies burned down, have their products boycotted and be the reason behind countless riots around the world? Nobody.
They did it as a joke. Look at Christians/Catholics/Protestants/whatever other church has magically appeared, they throw Jesus into random cartoons like Family Guy and The Simpsons, and no matter how religious they are, they laugh along with it. In their religion, it doesn't say anywhere that a caricature of a Prophet (or in their case, the son of God) are forbidden. Their religion isn't as demanding, and it doesn't really require that much faith either. I mean, I've met lesbians and gays who claim to be devout Christians. Umm, oxymoron?
So... people keep asking, why are Muslims so angry?
They're angry because a caricature of any Prophet is prohibited, because it relates to idolatry--which is comepletely forbidden.
But you're probably thinking... christians don't throw riots when a picture of Jesus comes up.
Yeah, well that's them. This is the Muslims. They're under different circumstances, under different rules.

I don't want anyone to think that I'm fully backing the Muslims here. I'm not. I'm not in agreement with either side right now. The Danish claim that this is freedom of speech, and that they have every right to publish whatever they want. Yes, that is true. However, in today's world, there's something called consideration. More importantly, there's respect. Yes, the artist may have found the cartoons to be quite hilarious, but really.. does that automatically mean that everyone will laugh with him? Of course not. It's a sensitive subject, especially when he's depicting the Prophet involved in Terrorist acts.

I will say this much to the Danes: The first time around, it was a matter of free speech. However, the Danes were approached peacefully by religious Muslim scholars before the riots broke out. They refused to apologize. They should have some respect, and know that the world doesn't always laugh with them. The first time around, it was free speech. The second time around, it was a matter of being a complete asshole.

To the Muslims... Are you stupid?
There was a second reason as to why the Muslims were so outraged over the publication of these cartoons. They depict the Prophet as a violent man, when in reality, the Islamic religion is quite peaceful. To depict the Prophet in a violent way is the same as saying the religion as a whole is violent.
So, in order to prove this wrong, the Muslims decided to have riots, get people of their own kind to be killed, burn down flags and embassies and threaten to behead the artist of the cartoons. How this made sense in their minds, I will never know. I mean, for real... you're just proving their point. Idiots.

I remember debating about this in an online forum when the first set of cartoons were published. It ended up with the forum being locked cause it got so violent after I was involved. Quite dramatic.

I'll say this much; both parties are completely wrong. I will not stand by the Muslims just cause I'm one of them. For now, I'm standing on the sidelines and waiting for someone else to clean up this mess."