Donate SIGN UP

Jesus & Mo cartoon.

Avatar Image
anotheoldgit | 13:41 Fri 20th Jan 2012 | News
51 Answers
http://www.dailymail....-posted-Facebook.html

Apparently the cartoon has upset a student Muslim group, which in turn has forced the University atheist society president to resign.

/// The association's national spokesperson, Adam Walker, said the two student groups had worked well together in the past and said the offence was unnecessary.///

/// He said: 'The principle is more important than who is being attacked - this time it is Muslims and Christians but in the future it could be atheists themselves. ///

I can see no mention of Christians being offended, so can we take it that it was just the Muslims who took offence.

The Daily Mail have chosen not to publish the offending cartoon, to enable one to come to a personal decision of whether or not the cartoon is offensive.

But I found a copy on the web and have entered it below, please do not look if you are also easily offended.

http://1.bp.blogspot....1600/jesus-and-mo.jpg
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 40 of 51rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
OK I'll start it off.

'Wow Mo nice one. That's even better than my water to wine trick'
fair enough jebus, but check out those norks on the barmaid.
It's just a picture AOG....and what message do you think it's trying to send out?
why has be got a jellyfish on his head?
I think BANKSY is saying.Most of you have white-washed this Geezer out the picture...its all about shopping frenzies,now!
I think the same!!
"It's just a picture AOG....and what message do you think it's trying to send out?"

well they seem to be holding hands and flaunting their sexuality.
Mohammed amd his followers certainly do not have a sense of humour.
-- answer removed --
Question Author
Baldric

/// More reproduction of others work and no question, what is your point? ///

There was a question, I just forgot to add a question mark, but then most would have not needed that visual aid to notice that it was indeed a question.

One needs to produce a certain amount of 'others work', because some demand the link to the news story, and then one has to go to the trouble of reproducing some relevant text because some are too lazy to read the whole story.

I also typed four paragraphs of my own words, which I deemed enough to get my point over.

Just because you still cannot see the point, it is a sad reflection on yourself at not being able to see the point, and not of me being unable to get my point across..
Not really rov...the inside of Christian churches were once alive with garish depictions...designed to scare the congregation half-to-death!

Islamic law forbids depiction of any living creature,not just Muhammad!
jesus christ, you wrote more about that one sentence than the issue central to the debate aog.

and before you quote me on this, which you are sure to do to the nth degree, i'm out.
There we go again. aog trying to belittle other posters, impose his opinion on them and make himself look intelligent in the process, just comes over as insecure and oversensitive to me.
Question Author
Baldric

/// There we go again. aog trying to belittle other posters, ///


Don't start something, if you do not want a retaliation.
You give the impression of a very unsavoury character,AOG!

Does everyday begin with you scouring The Daily Mail,looking for a story/non-story,which will enable you pick a fight,or attempt to belittle people who disagree?

Here you have found,yet again,a non-story.No doubt confected using Daily Mail journalism manual 101...find one person to complain,or failing that,call someone,and say "Ooooh,dont you think this is awful"! and then print their reply!

Meat & Drink for a DM reader!They love nothing better than an opportunity to splutter into their breakfast each morning!
I understand that Muslims have taken offence because the vidsiaul depicition of their prophet is against their creed, and does cause serious upset, as has been evidenced in the past.

It is very easy for the offender to blame the offended - but it's not really a viable defence, otherwise anything could be defended on the basis that the issue lies with the offended and their lack of humour / understanding / a life, delete as applicable.

Second-guessing the notion that the 'attack' could focus on atheists in the future is again spurious - as i understand it, the Muslims who are upset are offended by the image, which does not equate into an attack on anybody, now or in the future.

As far as the Mail not publishing - I would imagine they could run foul of laws governing offensive material, given that it is a known fact that images of living creatures are forbidden in Muslim culture.

In conclusion, i think the publication of the cartoom was ill-judged, and its removal and an apology should sort the matter out. Absence of a faith by one section of society does not condone ignoring the rules of believers, and upsetting them in the process.
// Absence of a faith by one section of society does not condone ignoring the rules of believers //

Why? I'm not a believer - why should I observe the rules of someone elses faith?
I obviously posted about this topic in the wrong section :)

http://www.theanswerb.../Question1094450.html

And it would appear that the issue drags on and on. First the complaint from the muslim society to the student union, then the complaint by the student union to the atheist society. Then a refusal to remove the image by the atheist society,coupled with some high profile supporters speaking out - then the UCL student union retracting their complaint. A victory for common sense, is what I thought.

Now, it would appear that the Muslim Society has not given up, and is still attempting to apply pressure, to effectively introduce religious censorship, on the grounds that cartoon images might offend their delicate sensibilities.Well, personally I find such attempts at censorship on religious grounds pretty darned offensive.

We pride ourselves as being a mature, secular, largely liberal society, built on foundations of values such as fairness, and tolerance, and individual liberty; We see ourselves as champions of the concept of free speech (so long as such free speech is not an incitement of hate).These are values to be cherished and nurtured. Such attempts at censorship run directly counter to our cultural values and should be firmly resisted.
Ludwig - "I'm not a believer - why should I observe the rules of someone elses faith?"

because allowing for the sensitivities of others helps the world turn. To observe this particular aspect of Muslim creed does not in any detract from you or your life experience, so why not simply go along with it?

That way, when Muslims who believe in Halal slaughter of animals won't come round and do it outside your living room window.

An extreme example I know - but if we cannot allow for others' attitudes and creeds, we cannot expect them to allow for ours - and that way lies anarchy.
^^But they don't allow for ours. We like a joke. It works both ways you know.

21 to 40 of 51rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Jesus & Mo cartoon.

Answer Question >>