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

Answers

41 to 51 of 51rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

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.
Question Author
Zhukov

/// You give the impression of a very unsavoury character,AOG! ///

Before first insulting me you should first take a look at yourself and all those others that take a delight in insulting me and trying to ridicule my threads.

If you do not believe me take a look at every thread I post, on no matter what subject, and see who are the prime instigators.

Also let me educate you in the way I go about starting a thread, yes I do mostly take the story from the Daily Mail but not always, it is all dependant on the specific story, I have been known to use the Mail, The Independent, The Guardian and the Express to name but a few.

But all these are legitimate newspapers, although the Mail takes much of the hammering, but that is just because they print stories that sometimes do not fit in with the agenda of those who complain.

But as I have said many time before I will not be bullied into not using the Mail, even the Mail's biggest criticisers are not adverse at using the Mail's web site, when a particular story fits their agenda.

The purpose of this news site is to start threads that will attract attention to a particular controversial news story, and that will in turn foster healthy, enjoyable, and recreational debate.

If a particular thread upsets a person for some unknown reason, then that person or person is quite at liberty to ignore the thread if they so wish, and if news items are not for them there are also many other topics on this site, in which they can join in with.

Having said that if some would prefer to use childish ways to somehow stifle the debate, then of course they are also free to do so, but the ED doesn't look kindly to this type of game, because in time it will ruin this web site for all those that get many hours of enjoyment from it.

Hope all this helps to clarify some things for you.

PS Did I miss you off my Christmas card? If so I do apologise.
Would it have been better if Mo had been drinking an orange juice?
@Andy

I would vehemently disagree. Such accomodations as you propose are a continuous erosion of our rights of free expression, individual liberty and free speech, in the name of a perceived offence by a small subsection of our society.

We continually have to fight against censorship. In the 60s and 70s it was resisting blasphemy and obscenity laws and Mary Whitehouse. Now we should be resisting religious fatwahs against authors and those who publish cartoons.

Such offence translates to jihads against authors - look at the furore surrounding the publication of Salman Rushdies "Satanic Verses" - Religious doctrine and priests/ mullahs sanctioned the death penalty on the grounds of offence! Even now, 2, no 3 decades on from the publication of his book, he has to withdraw from a trip to India because a small group of muslim fundamentalists issued a death penalty. And you want us to accomodate such practices? I think not...............
Well said LazyGun.
Fair enough,AOG...but one thing you might like to try,..is not to descend from a great height when some disagree with your argument!
I don't agree with the principle that just because someone's offended by something, everyone else should avoid doing it.
Being offended doesn't make you right. Plenty of people find other people offensive, simply because they have a different skin colour for example - are they right to be offended? Should we play along with their prejudice and prevent people of different races walking down the streets where the racists live so as not to ruffle their delicate sensibilities?

We should expect tolerance to work both ways. Sometimes the fault lies with the offender, but sometimes it does lie with the offended.

Usually when these stories arise, it turns out to be only a tiny minority of nutters taking the offence anyway - usually working to a deliberate trouble making agenda, with the vast majority of people (of whatever faith etc) taking a reasonable and tolerant view.
Question Author
Zhukov

I try not to do so, it is only when others insist that you agree with them and then anyone who doesn't, is insulted or given a pigeon hole such as 'racist' 'homophobic' 'sexist' 'narrow-minded bigot' 'Fascist' 'silly old f*rt' 'Right-Wing idiot' etc, etc.

Yes I have been called all these in the past, and believe me, it is not nice, when one is only out to enjoy oneself.
// That way, when Muslims who believe in Halal slaughter of animals won't come round and do it outside your living room window. //

Actually they'd be more likely to do it if I showed automatic deference to all their other religious foibles and strange practices. They'd have come to expect 'tolerance and respect' from me on every issue. I doubt they'd be too concerned about how I as an unbeliever was offended by the practice.
//I don't agree with the principle that just because someone's offended by something, everyone else should avoid doing it. //

Neither do I. One person has an attack of the vapours and everyone else has to kowtow to them. 'Offence' is a word that's much abused. I'm convinced that much of the time it's a ploy to shut other people up.
Just got back from the weekly pilgrimage to Waitrose to find that aog when someone disagrees with him resorts to threats of retaliation, which is keyboard warrior mentality, where is the reasoned argument or intelligent debate in that?
The trouble is ludwig Islam is not a tolerant religion, so it is a bit one sided.

41 to 51 of 51rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Do you know the answer?

Jesus & Mo cartoon.

Answer Question >>