Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Cartoons Cause Outrage- Again
128 Answers
A mini- storm has erupted, yet again, over a cartoon. This time it is an innocuous Jesus and Mo cartoon, worn on the T-shirts of 2 atheist studio guests debating religion on a BBC TV show. The BBC chose to censor the image of the T-shirts by pixillating them. Maajid Nawaz, also a guest on the show, an one-time islamic fundamentalist radical and now head of the Quilliam Foundation, was prompted to tweet that the image was innocuous and that God was greater than the outrage prompted by the image itself.
Cue hysterical muslim outrage, death threats - and a petition, organised by a muslim LibDem activist, to bar Nawaz from being the Lib-Dem PPC for Hampstead, which has, apparently, garnered 20,000 signatures, all presumably from outraged and offended UK muslims.
Then C4 get in the act, this time censoring the image of mohammed during their transmission.
Should we really be deferring to nonsensical religious sensibilities this way, by pro-actively censoring innocuous imagery that "might" cause offence to some?
http://
For myself, I am irritated at the BBC and C4 for the self-censorship, and irritated at these activists lobbying against Nawaz.
Cue hysterical muslim outrage, death threats - and a petition, organised by a muslim LibDem activist, to bar Nawaz from being the Lib-Dem PPC for Hampstead, which has, apparently, garnered 20,000 signatures, all presumably from outraged and offended UK muslims.
Then C4 get in the act, this time censoring the image of mohammed during their transmission.
Should we really be deferring to nonsensical religious sensibilities this way, by pro-actively censoring innocuous imagery that "might" cause offence to some?
http://
For myself, I am irritated at the BBC and C4 for the self-censorship, and irritated at these activists lobbying against Nawaz.
Answers
Actually khandro, the real problem is that someone is making light of something that they take very seriously, and that makes them very angry. Couple that with a belief that a god wants you to act on his behalf to prevent/
10:15 Thu 30th Jan 2014
It seems to me that if some bonehead religious scholar were to decree that we all had to stand on one leg, from 12:00 to 12:02 on alternate Sundays, in months with an R in it, anybody who didn't would be damned for all time.
Its a self-fulfilling prophecy. All religion is made up, and Islam is no different to any other. Ignore all religious nonsense...you only have your chains to lose !
Its a self-fulfilling prophecy. All religion is made up, and Islam is no different to any other. Ignore all religious nonsense...you only have your chains to lose !
I can just about understand their outrage. I get a bit sweaty and agitated when I read of the militant wing of the religion of peas steamrollering democracy with impunity yet again.
The time may have already gone but if not then the wild eyed lunatics need to be controlled or encouraged to seek alternative digs, perhaps closer to the centre of their particular sect.
Their latest insidious world takeover attempt might be easier to combat then.
Come on you gutless politicians, you're happy enough to send young men and women around the world to fight your battles. Stand up for them and yourselves in condemning this lunacy at home.
The time may have already gone but if not then the wild eyed lunatics need to be controlled or encouraged to seek alternative digs, perhaps closer to the centre of their particular sect.
Their latest insidious world takeover attempt might be easier to combat then.
Come on you gutless politicians, you're happy enough to send young men and women around the world to fight your battles. Stand up for them and yourselves in condemning this lunacy at home.
"Come on you gutless politicians, you're happy enough to send young men and women around the world to fight your battles. Stand up for them and yourselves in condemning this lunacy at home."
Absolutely.
This is also a good piece on the issue, well worth a read.
http://
I have written to the BBC and C4 expressing my disgust at their craven response to such extremist pressure - not that I believe it will do a great deal of good. :(
Absolutely.
This is also a good piece on the issue, well worth a read.
http://
I have written to the BBC and C4 expressing my disgust at their craven response to such extremist pressure - not that I believe it will do a great deal of good. :(
'The Quran does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental teachings) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating visual depictions of figures.
Most Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of all the prophets of Islam should be prohibited and are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad. The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry. In Shia Islam, however, images of Muhammad are quite common nowadays, even though Shia scholars historically were against such depictions. Many Muslims who take a stricter view of the supplemental traditions will sometimes challenge any depiction of Muhammad, including those created and published by non-Muslims.'
Isn't the big problem here that the "cartoonist" was an atheist and his intention was entirely malicious?
Most Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of all the prophets of Islam should be prohibited and are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad. The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry. In Shia Islam, however, images of Muhammad are quite common nowadays, even though Shia scholars historically were against such depictions. Many Muslims who take a stricter view of the supplemental traditions will sometimes challenge any depiction of Muhammad, including those created and published by non-Muslims.'
Isn't the big problem here that the "cartoonist" was an atheist and his intention was entirely malicious?
Khandro, //Isn't the big problem here that the "cartoonist" was an atheist and his intention was entirely malicious? //
No, it isn’t. The big problem is that the wishes of others have been allowed to take precedence. Would you describe the women who deliberately choose to make an unmistakable statement against western values by shrouding themselves in veils as 'malicious'?
No, it isn’t. The big problem is that the wishes of others have been allowed to take precedence. Would you describe the women who deliberately choose to make an unmistakable statement against western values by shrouding themselves in veils as 'malicious'?
Actually khandro, the real problem is that someone is making light of something that they take very seriously, and that makes them very angry.
Couple that with a belief that a god wants you to act on his behalf to prevent/punish the offender, and this is what you get. Religious people demanding that everyone respects the same things that they do.
The fact that people wearing the t-shirts were atheists, is exactly why it's ok for them to wear the t-shirts. If they were muslims it'd be wrong, but they're not. You could argue that it's rude or disrespectful, but there's no law against that. Being offended by something doesn't make you right.
Couple that with a belief that a god wants you to act on his behalf to prevent/punish the offender, and this is what you get. Religious people demanding that everyone respects the same things that they do.
The fact that people wearing the t-shirts were atheists, is exactly why it's ok for them to wear the t-shirts. If they were muslims it'd be wrong, but they're not. You could argue that it's rude or disrespectful, but there's no law against that. Being offended by something doesn't make you right.
In every language throughout the world & in every religion you point to some object & you say what it is called, it will of course be a different word or sound that you are uttering but they ALL mean the same thing. The very thought of Jesus & Mohammed ( mtnbb) being together & being friends appeals to me enormously, we are all brothers & sisters under the one God (Allah) what a tremendous achievement this would be if only it could happen.
WR.
WR.
whiskeryron; I support your sentiment completely, but don't let us blame the Muslims entirely, they have considerable respect for Jesus, and he gets a lot of favourable mention in the Quran, - much more than the majority of Christians have respect for Muslims, and the type of atheists represented by this "cartoonist" would appear to have no respect for either.
Ludwig // the real problem is that someone is making light of something that they take very seriously, and that makes them very angry.//
That's correct, is there anything you hold dearly that if it was insulted you might become angry too?
Ludwig // the real problem is that someone is making light of something that they take very seriously, and that makes them very angry.//
That's correct, is there anything you hold dearly that if it was insulted you might become angry too?
-- answer removed --
"That's correct, is there anything you hold dearly that if it was insulted you might become angry too?"
Not to the point of making death threats. Not to the point of banning an image - and bear in mind that the muslim world is by no means a coherent single minded bloc on this issue of images of Mohammed - Not to the point of lobbying to remove an individual from the position of prospective PC on behalf of the Liberal Democrat party.
Human Rights, freedom of expression, freedom of thought and speech should all come a very long way above religious rights of a zealous minority.
As to the Jesus and Mo cartoonist - How do you know his faith orientation? As far as I am aware, the cartoonist operates anonymously,under a pseudonym. The incident which sparked this particular contretemps was some veiled muslims professing outrage and hurt over 2 atheists invited onto a discussion panel to talk about faith wearing an inoffensive Jesus and Mo cartoon, and the BBC electing to pixillate the representation of Mohammed on their T-shirts - a ridiculous and craven stance by the BBC.
It is long past time that these religious fundamentalists grew up. There is no place for this kind of censorship over religious sensibilities in a secular, liberal western democracy.
Not to the point of making death threats. Not to the point of banning an image - and bear in mind that the muslim world is by no means a coherent single minded bloc on this issue of images of Mohammed - Not to the point of lobbying to remove an individual from the position of prospective PC on behalf of the Liberal Democrat party.
Human Rights, freedom of expression, freedom of thought and speech should all come a very long way above religious rights of a zealous minority.
As to the Jesus and Mo cartoonist - How do you know his faith orientation? As far as I am aware, the cartoonist operates anonymously,under a pseudonym. The incident which sparked this particular contretemps was some veiled muslims professing outrage and hurt over 2 atheists invited onto a discussion panel to talk about faith wearing an inoffensive Jesus and Mo cartoon, and the BBC electing to pixillate the representation of Mohammed on their T-shirts - a ridiculous and craven stance by the BBC.
It is long past time that these religious fundamentalists grew up. There is no place for this kind of censorship over religious sensibilities in a secular, liberal western democracy.
// That's correct, is there anything you hold dearly that if it was insulted you might become angry too? //
Yes, but as an adult I'd accept that feeling offended and angry is part of life. I can't stand that professional troll Frankie Boyle for example, but I'm not demanding that he be banned. Some people like him, and that's fair enough.
Yes, but as an adult I'd accept that feeling offended and angry is part of life. I can't stand that professional troll Frankie Boyle for example, but I'm not demanding that he be banned. Some people like him, and that's fair enough.
LG; I am in no way, shape or form condoning death threats. I'm talking solely of people being offended by people doing so for their own gratification. The irony is that Nawaz is being attacked by the lowest of the 'Muslim' pondlife for saying he is NOT offended.
//As far as I am aware, the cartoonist operates anonymously,under a pseudonym.// He was interviewed by a rather unsupportive Jeremy Paxman on last evening's Newsnight, having requested to not only have his face obscured, but his voice altered too. He informed us that he was very much an atheist. Strange how someone wants visible cartoons and yet personal anonymity don't you think?
//As far as I am aware, the cartoonist operates anonymously,under a pseudonym.// He was interviewed by a rather unsupportive Jeremy Paxman on last evening's Newsnight, having requested to not only have his face obscured, but his voice altered too. He informed us that he was very much an atheist. Strange how someone wants visible cartoons and yet personal anonymity don't you think?
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Your Vote Is Not Confidential.
News5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
News15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.