Pictures Of The Danish Muslim Cartoons

[actsnoblemartin]

Can you believe people died for this?. I dont know about you, but i wont cow or back down from islamo nazi terrorists, and their sympathizers.

They kill non-muslims, and other muslims, and i wont be politically correct for anyone.

Disclaimer: Unless someone says all muslims, it should not be assumed they mean all muslims, they should be given the benefit of the doubt.

So should we make fun of muslims too or only christians cause you wont get hurt if you do?


http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/jyllands-posten_cartoons/

[TheyLive]

I'm sure if you drew pictures of the Star of David dripping blood over a map of Palestine you might inspire some organized demonstrations in protest as well, peaceful to the extent they are privileged (i.e., not being stoked by a repressive regime which otherwise prohibits public displays; other circumstances foreign to most westerners, etc.).

It's hard to imagine taking something that is sacred to others, caricaturing it from the safe homogeneity of your own community (knowing full well you will enjoy state protection for your expression, thus rendering the "freedom of speech" stance irrelevant) and not prompting a strong reaction of some kind -- again, variable depending on the circumstances.

It's not an issue of whether one has the "right" to do this; the reason why offensive caricatures of African-American or other US groups do not regularly appear in domestic editorial pages is because cartoonists have the good judgment not to submit them. In all likelihood, this judgment is informed by a fear of the consequences that are likely to transpire; all the more so when they will play themselves out close to home...

[stephanie]

http://adweek.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/25/folsom.jpg[/QUOTE]

this is an everyday occurrence for Christians....

But hey...it was done by homosexuals mocking Christians, so it's AOK...and we need to make hate crime laws for those homosexuals.....cause they NEED TO be..................PROTECTED...

You don't see Christians gathering for a RIOT..Hummmm?

[stephanie]

Lawmakers tack it onto a defense spending measure


By RICHARD SIMON
Los Angeles Times


WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday approved a long-debated measure that would expand the federal hate-crime law to cover violence against gays and, in an unusual gambit to make it difficult for President Bush to carry out his veto threat, attached it to a defense bill.

Supporters of the hate-crime legislation mustered the minimum 60 votes they needed to overcome a threatened filibuster. The House approved the bill earlier this year as a stand-alone measure, but neither chamber appears to have the votes to override a veto.

"We have never had this bill with the potential to go as far as it is,said Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore.,one of the chief sponsors. Smith stood on the Senate floor next to a photo of Matthew Shepard, a gay college student who was brutally beaten in Wyoming in 1998 and left to die tied to a fence. The bill is named for Shepard.

The legislation — the first major expansion of the hate-crime statute passed in 1968 — would expand the law to cover acts of violence motivated by a victim's sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity. Existing federal law defines hate crimes as those motivated by bias based on religion, race, national origin or color.

The measure would give federal authorities more leeway to assist state and local law enforcement in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.

read the rest of this SPECIAL BILL for only a certain people,(less than a four percent of of the United States population...... BUT...not for the rest of US AMERICAN CITIZENS........
so they can display pictures like this..
http://adweek.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/25/folsom.jpg[/QUOTE]
Because they are so persecuted, that they can make the above photos freely, and laugh in our faces while people pass laws for them....::dance:

read the rest of this artical and the mocking comments of all the people at...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5171206.html and comments at...

[TheyLive]

http://adweek.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/25/folsom.jpg


this is an everyday occurrence for Christians....

But hey...it was done by homosexuals mocking Christians, so it's AOK...and we need to make hate crime laws for those homosexuals.....cause they NEED TO be..................PROTECTED...

You don't see Christians gathering for a RIOT..Hummmm?

Your example doesn't seem analogous on any level. For one thing, it's not obvious to me that the picture is "mocking Christianity," but more likely expressing a desire for inclusion in a faith they, in fact, admire (albeit not by "gays" per se, but rather by a BDSM subset of that group, an important distinction). This is borne out by the headlines we see everyday: gays want to be a part of the Christian family; they persistently seek acceptance to this end, whether it be in marriage or by taking leadership roles in their churches, etc... I know of no gay group which maintains an antagonistic stance towards Christianity as a matter of principle. Perhaps you interpret their overtures as rejection and mockery; the likelihood is that they do not. The reason nobody riots over these things is because the gay community is not perceived as eliciting any threat which warrants it. People merely object to their lifestyle, not how they act toward others.

Quite a different thing from caricaturing someone else's prophet as treacherous when you do not share their faith and have a long history (as a westerner) of meddling in their affairs...

[82Marine89]

http://adweek.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/25/folsom.jpg



Your example doesn't seem analogous on any level. For one thing, it's not obvious to me that the picture is "mocking Christianity," but more likely expressing a desire for inclusion in a faith they, in fact, admire (albeit not by "gays" per se, but rather by a BDSM subset of that group, an important distinction). This is borne out by the headlines we see everyday: gays want to be a part of the Christian family; they persistently seek acceptance to this end, whether it be in marriage or by taking leadership roles in their churches, etc... I know of no gay group which maintains an antagonistic stance towards Christianity as a matter of principle. Perhaps you interpret their overtures as rejection and mockery; the likelihood is that they do not. The reason nobody riots over these things is because the gay community is not perceived as eliciting any threat which warrants it. People merely object to their lifestyle, not how they act toward others.

Quite a different thing from caricaturing someone else's prophet as treacherous when you do not share their faith and have a long history (as a westerner) of meddling in their affairs...

It is a direct attack on Christianity. The ad itself comes from the Folsom Street Fair (http://www.folsomstreetfair.com/). It is billed as the "granddaddy of all leather events".

[5stringJeff]

It's not an issue of whether one has the "right" to do this; the reason why offensive caricatures of African-American or other US groups do not regularly appear in domestic editorial pages is because cartoonists have the good judgment not to submit them. In all likelihood, this judgment is informed by a fear of the consequences that are likely to transpire; all the more so when they will play themselves out close to home...

Except that when these cartoons were printed, it was all about the right to print them. Muslims believe that no one should be able to say/draw such things, which is why there was so much violence.

[TheyLive]

It is a direct attack on Christianity. The ad itself comes from the Folsom Street Fair (http://www.folsomstreetfair.com/). It is billed as the "granddaddy of all leather events".

So Christianity is "under attack" by the organizers of one-day festival in San Francisco? Please. What percentage of the US population do you think pays any attention to what leather enthusiasts do in San Francisco -- or anywhere for that matter? Taking offense at the behavior of others is a far cry from having it meaningfully impact your life. This is a good example of how relatively privileged people who rarely experience "threats" become accustomed to finding it in anything that displeases them. If SF leathermen were the worst Christianity had to deal with it would be in far better shape than it is today: the institution is hurt far worse by its own track record of, say, hypocrisy, than it is by any external actor. Shielding pedophiles from legal scrutiny tends to trump theatrical revisionism in the eyes of most people, wouldn't you say?

[TheyLive]

Except that when these cartoons were printed, it was all about the right to print them. Muslims believe that no one should be able to say/draw such things, which is why there was so much violence.

"Muslims" have no authority over what Danish artists print, so it is not a freedom of speech issue if Muslims don't like it. Muslims cannot arrest the editorial staff of Danish publications, they cannot charge them with any crime. At worst, they can intimidate them or threaten with bodily harm, at which point Danish authorities will intervene -- on behalf of their citizens. In other words, the state would fulfill its obligation for the safety of its subjects when they express themselves freely. Thus, the criteria for "freedom of speech" is upheld.

In fact, this was explicitly acknowledged by the artist when he said he felt a kind of political correctness was compelling him to practice a kind of "self-censorship" -- i.e., he knew that printing controversial material might provoke a strong reaction. Judging for oneself what is appropriate to say in a public setting is a normal part of social life, not a freedom of speech issue. There are reasons why people do not always express themselves honestly -- for example, on the issue of race -- because they don't feel that the need to speak "freely" outweighs having to endure the potential consequences of what is said.

There is good reason why Don Imus did not accuse the Rutger's basketball team of infringing on his right to "free speech" in defense of his "nappy-headed ho's" comment, because nobody would have taken it seriously. If Imus had tried to fashion himself into a "free-speech hero" for standing up to social norms which don't approve of racial stereotyping, he would have been a laughingstock: freedom of expression does not protect you from public condemnation of what you say, or the predictable consequences of such condemnation, such as being fired, and so on.

[5stringJeff]

"Muslims" have no authority over what Danish artists print, so it is not a freedom of speech issue if Muslims don't like it. Muslims cannot arrest the editorial staff of Danish publications, they cannot charge them with any crime. At worst, they can intimidate them or threaten with bodily harm, at which point Danish authorities will intervene -- on behalf of their citizens. In other words, the state is fulfilling its obligation for the safety of its subjects when they express themselves freely. Thus, the criteria for "freedom of speech" is upheld.

So they hope. What happens if a Muslim in Denmark was able to kill this cartoonist before the authorities intervened? And what about the calls of Muslims to limit free speech, when that speech is deemed "insulting" to Muslims?


freedom of expression does not protect you from public condemnation of what you say, or the predictable consequences of such condemnation, such as being fired, and so on.

I agree. However, Muslims' death threats, calls to limit anti-Muslim speech, etc. goes beyond what happened with Don Imus.

[82Marine89]

So Christianity is "under attack" by the organizers of one-day festival in San Francisco? Please. What percentage of the US population do you think pays any attention to what leather enthusiasts do in San Francisco -- or anywhere for that matter? Taking offense at the behavior of others is a far cry from having it meaningfully impact your life. This is a good example of how relatively privileged people who rarely experience "threats" become accustomed to finding it in anything that displeases them. If SF leathermen were the worst Christianity had to deal with it would be in far better shape than it is today: the institution is hurt far worse by its own track record of, say, hypocrisy, than it is by any external actor. Shielding pedophiles from legal scrutiny tends to trump theatrical revisionism in the eyes of most people, wouldn't you say?

You paint with a pretty broad brush don't you? What makes you think I'm a privileged person? What makes you think I took offense at this ad? Why do you lump if the actions of less than 1% of the Catholic church with all Christians? I'd love to hear your explanation of these questions.

Also, does it really matter what percentage takes notice? If it is less then 10% do they have less of a voice then if 25% noticed? It is the constant attacks, no matter how small they be, that have an effect. One small group gets away with it because only a few people were offended, then another group does the same. Then another and another and another. Pretty soon you have a coalition of these groups with a strong political voice. All this because only a small percentage was effected and we were supposed to shut up and not be offended.

[TheyLive]

What happens if a Muslim in Denmark was able to kill this cartoonist before the authorities intervened?

Then it's a criminal matter, as you would expect. It only becomes a civil liberties issue if the government fails to provide reasonable protection against likely threats. Civil liberty refers to a relationship between governments and their citizens, specifically.


And what about the calls of Muslims to limit free speech, when that speech is deemed "insulting" to Muslims?

Nobody has a right to impose their standards on the expression of others as a matter of public policy. That's true even when the majority of a community objects to the expression. People who believe in freedom of expression will defend it even for those views they most despise.

[TheyLive]

What makes you think I'm a privileged person?

Because I presume you live in this country, not Syria.


What makes you think I took offense at this ad?

Well, you characterized it as an "attack on Christianity." Unless you endorse attacks on Christianity, I assume you took offense to it.


Why do you lump if the actions of less than 1% of the Catholic church with all Christians? I'd love to hear your explanation of these questions.

Institutionalized Christianity (like most religions) has a long association with varying forms of corruption (of which the Catholic Church pedophilia scandal is but one contemporary example), to an extent that is openly acknowledged in our culture. It seems to me an urgent task of Christians to put their own house in order before worrying about anybody else, since more damage is done in their name than in opposition to it: in fact, an elementary moral principle often articulated by its founders.


Also, does it really matter what percentage takes notice? If it is less then 10% do they have less of a voice then if 25% noticed? It is the constant attacks, no matter how small they be, that have an effect. One small group gets away with it because only a few people were offended, then another group does the same. Then another and another and another. Pretty soon you have a coalition of these groups with a strong political voice. All this because only a small percentage was effected and we were supposed to shut up and not be offended.

Where is this "anti-Christian" coalition that you speak of? Or are you merely referring to a society which does not wholly share your particular outlook, so it must be interpreted as hostile and treated as a threat? I'm not aware of anyone making an argument against Christianity, unless you count someone like Christopher Hitchens, who in my opinion is barely persuasive. Neverthess many people do not hold Christianity in high esteem because of the actions of its own members. I would speculate it has virtually nothing to do with any external attack of the type which you describe.

[Yurt]

TheyLive;130927]Because I presume you live in this country, not Syria.



Well, you characterized it as an "attack on Christianity." Unless you endorse attacks on Christianity, I assume you took offense to it.



Institutionalized Christianity (like most religions) has a long association with varying forms of corruption (of which the Catholic Church pedophilia scandal is but one contemporary example), to an extent that is openly acknowledged in our culture. It seems to me an urgent task of Christians to put their own house in order before worrying about anybody else, since more damage is done in their name than in opposition to it: in fact, an elementary moral principle often articulated by its founders.

You have a real problem. Institutionalized is not a good word for a church, maybe a prison, then again, maybe you feel that way. A church is made up of humans, thus, any church is not perfect. As to putting one's house in order, we are not talking about pulling a plank out of our eye, we are talking about a demonic religion that wants to control the world and subjugate anyone who is not of their faith. I implore you to actually research Islam and not spout mindless drivel.


Where is this "anti-Christian" coalition that you speak of?

You are new, so, I will give you a break. Are you kidding?

[actsnoblemartin]

The muslim world creats blatant anti semitism every day.

I still believe in freedom of speech. I will not allow the blatant hypocrisy of muslims in the world, whos government make fun of in a worse hate filled way then we ever could, jews. And then whine like a little bitch, when we show mohammed, they need to grow up, grow a pair, and get over themselves,they are not that important, and i wont walk on egg shelves for them or anyone else.

That said, nobody dies for their mocking of other religions, and i believe we should be able to mock any religion, and not let muslims bully us.

[TheyLive]

You have a real problem. Institutionalized is not a good word for a church, maybe a prison, then again, maybe you feel that way. A church is made up of humans, thus, any church is not perfect. As to putting one's house in order, we are not talking about pulling a plank out of our eye, we are talking about a demonic religion that wants to control the world and subjugate anyone who is not of their faith. I implore you to actually research Islam and not spout mindless drivel.

Interesting to hear your views, but without any accompanying arguments I can't really respond.


The muslim world creats blatant anti semitism every day.

I still believe in freedom of speech. I will not allow the blatant hypocrisy of muslims in the world, whos government make fun of in a worse hate filled way then we ever could, jews. And then whine like a little bitch, when we show mohammed, they need to grow up, grow a pair, and get over themselves,they are not that important, and i wont walk on egg shelves for them or anyone else.

That said, nobody dies for their mocking of other religions, and i believe we should be able to mock any religion, and not let muslims bully us.

For what it's worth, I believe we should be able to mock any religion, too; unfortunately, that is not the same thing as saying it is always wise to do so.

[Abbey Marie]

...

Your example doesn't seem analogous on any level. For one thing, it's not obvious to me that the picture is "mocking Christianity," but more likely expressing a desire for inclusion in a faith they, in fact, admire (albeit not by "gays" per se, but rather by a BDSM subset of that group, an important distinction). This is borne out by the headlines we see everyday: gays want to be a part of the Christian family; they persistently seek acceptance to this end, whether it be in marriage or by taking leadership roles in their churches, etc... I know of no gay group which maintains an antagonistic stance towards Christianity as a matter of principle. Perhaps you interpret their overtures as rejection and mockery; the likelihood is that they do not. The reason nobody riots over these things is because the gay community is not perceived as eliciting any threat which warrants it. People merely object to their lifestyle, not how they act toward others.

Quite a different thing from caricaturing someone else's prophet as treacherous when you do not share their faith and have a long history (as a westerner) of meddling in their affairs...

If gays truly just wanted inclusion in the Christian family, as you put it, they would be welcome with open arms. What they really want, however, is for the Christian family to abandon its beliefs to accomodate their biblically-denounced sexuality. To eat their cake and have it too, so to speak. That's quite a different thing.

[82Marine89]

Because I presume you live in this country, not Syria.

Let me tell that to the homeless guy on the street corner, or maybe the kids in our inner cities that go hungry at night. How about the families living in the Blue Ridge mountains? Do you presume these folks are privileged? I mean they live in America, so they must be privileged.



Well, you characterized it as an "attack on Christianity." Unless you endorse attacks on Christianity, I assume you took offense to it.

You make a lot of assumptions and presumptions don't you?



Institutionalized Christianity (like most religions) has a long association with varying forms of corruption (of which the Catholic Church pedophilia scandal is but one contemporary example), to an extent that is openly acknowledged in our culture. It seems to me an urgent task of Christians to put their own house in order before worrying about anybody else, since more damage is done in their name than in opposition to it: in fact, an elementary moral principle often articulated by its founders.

Institutionalized? A long association with varying forms of corruption? Care to provide links?



Where is this "anti-Christian" coalition that you speak of? Or are you merely referring to a society which does not wholly share your particular outlook, so it must be interpreted as hostile and treated as a threat? I'm not aware of anyone making an argument against Christianity, unless you count someone like Christopher Hitchens, who in my opinion is barely persuasive. Neverthess many people do not hold Christianity in high esteem because of the actions of its own members. I would speculate it has virtually nothing to do with any external attack of the type which you describe.

Please don't tell me that was a serious question.

[TheyLive]

Let me tell that to the homeless guy on the street corner, or maybe the kids in our inner cities that go hungry at night. How about the families living in the Blue Ridge mountains? Do you presume these folks are privileged? I mean they live in America, so they must be privileged.

You've just changed the subject from political liberty to economic inequality, clearly not what we were discussing when you wrote:


It is the constant attacks, no matter how small they be, that have an effect. One small group gets away with it because only a few people were offended, then another group does the same. Then another and another and another. Pretty soon you have a coalition of these groups with a strong political voice.

If you want to have a discussion about economic inequity I'd recommend a different thread. You are right that the US has a lousy track record, btw.


You make a lot of assumptions and presumptions don't you?

You're free to refute them whenever you want.


Institutionalized? A long association with varying forms of corruption? Care to provide links?

If you need a link to verify what "institutionalized" means, I can only suggest Websters.com. And I already gave an example which did far more damage to Christianity than a gay depiction of the Last Supper, which probably did none since it contains no argument beyond the banal suggestion that even marginalized people are part of God's family -- in fact, a central Christian tenet, lest we forget. Need I mention the perennial scandals surrounding popular evangelical leaders and phony TV personalities? As I have said repeatedly, the actions of Christians do far more damage to their religion than what anybody else can muster up, to the extreme degree that Christians find "threats" in things that merely offend them, such as the aforementioned ad. There is no real challenge to their predominance in the West, so they invent them.

Consider this quote from Gandhi: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Why would Gandhi say this? Because he was a liar who hated Christians? Or because, like many, many people, he identifies in organized Christianity frequent departure from Christ's teachings? As Christians, I assume it is these departures you should be worried about before worrying about anybody else. Again, what Christ himself said, rather unambiguously.




Where is this "anti-Christian" coalition that you speak of? Or are you merely referring to a society which does not wholly share your particular outlook, so it must be interpreted as hostile and treated as a threat? I'm not aware of anyone making an argument against Christianity, unless you count someone like Christopher Hitchens, who in my opinion is barely persuasive. Neverthess many people do not hold Christianity in high esteem because of the actions of its own members. I would speculate it has virtually nothing to do with any external attack of the type which you describe.


Please don't tell me that was a serious question.

Yeah, that was the last guy's response. In your next post, why don't you sketch out this "anti-Christian" political coalition in the US. Who is it comprised of, and how are they trying to constrict religious liberty for Christians in this country?

[actsnoblemartin]

True, what gays want is not tolerance, but to impose acceptance down the throats of christians jews and muslims. And if they dont, call them bigots and homophobes.

You cant force people to accept your beliefs.


If gays truly just wanted inclusion in the Christian family, as you put it, they would be welcome with open arms. What they really want, however, is for the Christian family to abandon its beliefs to accomodate their biblically-denounced sexuality. To eat their cake and have it too, so to speak. That's quite a different thing.

[manu1959]

True, what gays want is not tolerance, but to impose acceptance down the throats of christians jews and muslims. And if they dont, call them bigots and homophobes.

You cant force people to accept your beliefs.

if you actually spend time with the reasonable gay crowd.....they want what you have....no more no less....

[TheyLive]

True, what gays want is not tolerance, but to impose acceptance down the throats of christians jews and muslims. And if they dont, call them bigots and homophobes.

You cant force people to accept your beliefs.

As far as religious communities are concerned, I think you are right that it is up to a particular church or worship community as a whole. So that will vary by community. Predictably, gays will make the argument that religious positions on homosexuality, to the extent they are proscriptive, deserve reconsideration. Worship communities can decide for themselves whether such arguments are persuasive or not.

As far as the public arena is concerned, it's pretty hard to argue against equal recognition under the law. In the long run I think it is inevitable that gays will win that fight -- rightly so in my opinion.

[82Marine89]

You're free to refute them whenever you want.



I presume you're gay and I assume that is why you are defending these queers. Refute that.

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree, we should be able to mock religions. I also think if americans could mock each others race and sexual orientation, including hetero's... we all wouldnt be so uptight, and angry all the time.

When i was younger, I saw a white friend, make a black joke, to his black friend, but first he said, he meant no disrespect, and was polite.

Why cant everyone, just make fun of everyone, without a riot anytime, the littlest joke is made, its as if.

Racism is everything, with no bounderies of definitions, and we make excuses for some to do it but not others, with no common sense way to be like, this is a joke, and this is actually racist.




Interesting to hear your views, but without any accompanying arguments I can't really respond.



For what it's worth, I believe we should be able to mock any religion, too; unfortunately, that is not the same thing as saying it is always wise to do so.

[actsnoblemartin]

that is really uncalled for, and while im not your dad, and i cant and wont tell you what to do.

I believe, all of us should try to be more civil, lord knows im a raging a-hole sometimes.


I presume you're gay and I assume that is why you are defending these queers. Refute that.