Motoring2 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
naomi; either you are not reading the posts or we are not speaking the same language. At 13:12 yesterday I wrote; //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.//
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I don't think there is any requirement in the holy book of islam for it's devotees to be offended by images of mohammed. They are offended because they want to be offended, it is a personal issue outside the scope of their claimed belief and has no more significance than the views of any other person. They cannot claim any islamic authority for their views as it doesn't exist. Of course we mustn't fall for the idea that any religious work has any authority since there are so many with so many conflcting views that they must inevitably cancel out.
jom; I re-post from mine of 23:47 Wed. //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.//
The concept that images can encourage idolatry has a long and dignified history, - images of the Buddha and of Christ were originaly forbidden.
The point I have tried to make over and over again, is that if something offends, why not leave it alone?
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.//
The concept that images can encourage idolatry has a long and dignified history, - images of the Buddha and of Christ were originaly forbidden.
The point I have tried to make over and over again, is that if something offends, why not leave it alone?
Wasn't proscription of 'Graven images' one of the ten commandments?
It was the one which most puzzled me, when I was a kid. Over the years, I've thought up all manner of reasons why it might be deleterious to indulge in such things.
For instance: The Israelites were a tribe on the move, at the time and having a single object of veneration (gold, especially) which could get stolen by raiders would provoke abject despair and chaos, in an environment where calm and order was necessary for day to day survival.
Also, we all know people are duplicitious. It's possible to be goody two shoes in front of the idol (or boss) and then slope of and be an evil sh*ster to all and sundry once you're out of the temple. Therefore, it's necessary to do away with a physical object and make out that god is omnipresent and omniscient.
"What's bad about idolatry?" would make a great thread title but this one is as good as any, since it revolves around the issue of imagery.
It was the one which most puzzled me, when I was a kid. Over the years, I've thought up all manner of reasons why it might be deleterious to indulge in such things.
For instance: The Israelites were a tribe on the move, at the time and having a single object of veneration (gold, especially) which could get stolen by raiders would provoke abject despair and chaos, in an environment where calm and order was necessary for day to day survival.
Also, we all know people are duplicitious. It's possible to be goody two shoes in front of the idol (or boss) and then slope of and be an evil sh*ster to all and sundry once you're out of the temple. Therefore, it's necessary to do away with a physical object and make out that god is omnipresent and omniscient.
"What's bad about idolatry?" would make a great thread title but this one is as good as any, since it revolves around the issue of imagery.
Khandro - "... The point I have tried to make over and over again, is that if something offends, why not leave it alone?"
Because we don't have to and shouldn't have to if we so chose. No one should. Nor should anyone ever be in fear of their very lives for expressing a mere opinion. This matter and your responses to it go to the very heart of the concept of free-speech; a concept that I'm not sure you fully grasp as demonstrated by your citing of the 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre' argument.
Thankfully we live in a country where people can openly express any opinion (within certain legal boundaries relating to the incitement of violence) through speech, writing, music and art. If someone is doing, writing, saying or presenting something that offends your beliefs, you have the absolute right to look away and pay no attention to it. The choice is entirely your own.
When people such as yourself say things like, "why not leave it alone?", what you're tacitly suggesting is that controversial opinions should not be expressed at all. Dissent and opposing views should be hidden away and not mentioned - through silence imposed by fear, agreement is achieved. What you're advocating is a self-imposed form of censorship based on the highly subjective notion of "offence". Whilst making your comments on this website and living in a secular democracy, has it ever occurred to you where this notion inevitably leads to?
It's been said before but it warrants repeating - no one has the right not to be offended. If you don't understand that concept then you'll never understand why your apologist stance is routinely and robustly criticised by genuinely free-thinking people.
Because we don't have to and shouldn't have to if we so chose. No one should. Nor should anyone ever be in fear of their very lives for expressing a mere opinion. This matter and your responses to it go to the very heart of the concept of free-speech; a concept that I'm not sure you fully grasp as demonstrated by your citing of the 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre' argument.
Thankfully we live in a country where people can openly express any opinion (within certain legal boundaries relating to the incitement of violence) through speech, writing, music and art. If someone is doing, writing, saying or presenting something that offends your beliefs, you have the absolute right to look away and pay no attention to it. The choice is entirely your own.
When people such as yourself say things like, "why not leave it alone?", what you're tacitly suggesting is that controversial opinions should not be expressed at all. Dissent and opposing views should be hidden away and not mentioned - through silence imposed by fear, agreement is achieved. What you're advocating is a self-imposed form of censorship based on the highly subjective notion of "offence". Whilst making your comments on this website and living in a secular democracy, has it ever occurred to you where this notion inevitably leads to?
It's been said before but it warrants repeating - no one has the right not to be offended. If you don't understand that concept then you'll never understand why your apologist stance is routinely and robustly criticised by genuinely free-thinking people.
Hypognosis - "... Wasn't proscription of 'Graven images' one of the ten commandments?..."
Yes. It was number two. The quite absurdly insecure Jewish God was so scared that people might start worshipping other (apparently non-existent) Gods that He saw fit to place such a injunction into the Ten Commandments. Strange that... since being the only God, He would know for a fact that there weren't any other Gods so anyone He saw praying to them would just be a under a misapprehension. In those instances, being omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, He could simply appear before the mistaken individual and explain their mistake. Such a intervention would be a mere trifle for a supernatural being that created an entire universe.
The inclusion of such an injunction into the Ten Commandments seems odd when other, more pressing matters could (and arguably should) have been included. Slavery springs to mind, as do many other unsavoury crimes.
Be that as it may, if one were cynical, one might conclude that the Commandment looks very much like an ordinary human being has invented it as a direct personal threat to help prevent apostasy.
Yes. It was number two. The quite absurdly insecure Jewish God was so scared that people might start worshipping other (apparently non-existent) Gods that He saw fit to place such a injunction into the Ten Commandments. Strange that... since being the only God, He would know for a fact that there weren't any other Gods so anyone He saw praying to them would just be a under a misapprehension. In those instances, being omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, He could simply appear before the mistaken individual and explain their mistake. Such a intervention would be a mere trifle for a supernatural being that created an entire universe.
The inclusion of such an injunction into the Ten Commandments seems odd when other, more pressing matters could (and arguably should) have been included. Slavery springs to mind, as do many other unsavoury crimes.
Be that as it may, if one were cynical, one might conclude that the Commandment looks very much like an ordinary human being has invented it as a direct personal threat to help prevent apostasy.
Apologies! the last line of the above post is badly phrased; "if something offends, why not leave it alone?" I missed out the word 'someone'. It should read; if something offends someone, why not leave it alone? in other words, why go out of your way to hurt someone?
naomi; I agree about the Burka and it has been covered (no pun intended) exhaustively on other threads, and is a different issue.
For early images of Jesus; see Hypo above. "By whom" regarding the Buddha, well by Buddhists themselves, and for the similar reasons viz. they didn't want IMAGES to be worshipped because they might detract from the Dharma (the teaching) so he was not to be depicted, but early artists made images that alluded to him such as a footprint, or a wheel - which represented the teaching, (both these images are still in use).
Some Hellenistic sculptors, part of Alexander's army when he moved into India, converted to Buddhism and had no scruples about making images of Shakyamuni the historical Buddha, and that is why the early sculptures have a distinctly Greek look in the folds of drapery and facial features.
naomi; I agree about the Burka and it has been covered (no pun intended) exhaustively on other threads, and is a different issue.
For early images of Jesus; see Hypo above. "By whom" regarding the Buddha, well by Buddhists themselves, and for the similar reasons viz. they didn't want IMAGES to be worshipped because they might detract from the Dharma (the teaching) so he was not to be depicted, but early artists made images that alluded to him such as a footprint, or a wheel - which represented the teaching, (both these images are still in use).
Some Hellenistic sculptors, part of Alexander's army when he moved into India, converted to Buddhism and had no scruples about making images of Shakyamuni the historical Buddha, and that is why the early sculptures have a distinctly Greek look in the folds of drapery and facial features.
Khandro, as the only available 'expert' on islam available on AB at present could you clarify what an 'hadith' is? It cannot be the 'word of god' since if it was it would be incorporated in the koran. It must therefore be supplementary stuff tacked on by 'scholars' to patch up holes in the koran. Could it be comparable to catholic dogma which is invented up to make a more complete story, like my favourites the assumption of Mary and her immaculate conception which made her free of original sin.
You can see where this is going?
You can see where this is going?
khandro //if something offends someone, why not leave it alone? in other words, why go out of your way to hurt someone? //
So the religious should stop hurting people by treating women, children and homosexuals as inferior.
Why don't they leave it alone?
Should we stop pointing out the unsavoury truth about Neo-Nazis because it hurts them to hear us criticise them?
Should women and their supports during the seventies have just shut up and stopped hurting sexist men by telling them their prejudices were unacceptable?
People need to be told when their behaviour is unacceptable. If they want to counter claim against atheists thn by all means go ahead but expect debate and have intelligent arguments to back their position.
Unfortunately the religious don't have intelligent positions. Few claims are quite as ridiculous as those backed simply by "God said in the Bible." It fact is a profoundly inane position that does not deserve the slightest respect. Those who use it need to be told they are talking rubbish and I won't apologise for doing so.
So the religious should stop hurting people by treating women, children and homosexuals as inferior.
Why don't they leave it alone?
Should we stop pointing out the unsavoury truth about Neo-Nazis because it hurts them to hear us criticise them?
Should women and their supports during the seventies have just shut up and stopped hurting sexist men by telling them their prejudices were unacceptable?
People need to be told when their behaviour is unacceptable. If they want to counter claim against atheists thn by all means go ahead but expect debate and have intelligent arguments to back their position.
Unfortunately the religious don't have intelligent positions. Few claims are quite as ridiculous as those backed simply by "God said in the Bible." It fact is a profoundly inane position that does not deserve the slightest respect. Those who use it need to be told they are talking rubbish and I won't apologise for doing so.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
News4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
ChatterBank7 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.