I Wonder How Long Gulliver Will...
Politics0 min 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
" 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?"
No, I do not think it at all strange that he wishes for anonymity, given the furore over the Danish Cartoons, etc. And some artists just like the anonymity - Banksy springs to mind. Thanks for the clarification as to his belief status, as well. Did not see the Paxman interview.
I am unsure why you feel his faith status is relevant though.The Jesus and Mo series of cartoons are inoffensive; you have to strive to be offended - so satirical, yes, but grown up religions, grown up people can surely cope with that.
As Nawaz himself pointed out, his god is surely above/greater than to be mortally offended or desperately hurt at such ribaldry,especially a cartoon representation of Jesus and Mohammed saying Hi to each other, worn on a T-shirt.
Nor is it a unanimous prohibition amongst Muslims; Sunnis tend not to like such representations whereas Shias seem much more relaxed about it. Nor does the Quran explicitly forbid images of the prophet.
But despite this, we have the unedifying spectacle of islamic activists attempting to stifle free expression and free speech by lobbying for the removal of Nawaz as PPC for the Lib Dems, a petition of 20,000, death threats and the like. Several muslim commentators have supported Nawaz, and it is about time the zealots stopped frothing at the mouth at the faintest opportunity too.
No, I do not think it at all strange that he wishes for anonymity, given the furore over the Danish Cartoons, etc. And some artists just like the anonymity - Banksy springs to mind. Thanks for the clarification as to his belief status, as well. Did not see the Paxman interview.
I am unsure why you feel his faith status is relevant though.The Jesus and Mo series of cartoons are inoffensive; you have to strive to be offended - so satirical, yes, but grown up religions, grown up people can surely cope with that.
As Nawaz himself pointed out, his god is surely above/greater than to be mortally offended or desperately hurt at such ribaldry,especially a cartoon representation of Jesus and Mohammed saying Hi to each other, worn on a T-shirt.
Nor is it a unanimous prohibition amongst Muslims; Sunnis tend not to like such representations whereas Shias seem much more relaxed about it. Nor does the Quran explicitly forbid images of the prophet.
But despite this, we have the unedifying spectacle of islamic activists attempting to stifle free expression and free speech by lobbying for the removal of Nawaz as PPC for the Lib Dems, a petition of 20,000, death threats and the like. Several muslim commentators have supported Nawaz, and it is about time the zealots stopped frothing at the mouth at the faintest opportunity too.
Lg; I agree with most of what you are saying, however, my point is that no Muslims want their prophet derided, so quite simply - why do it? The cartoons are bad, unfunny, (whose laughing?) and are made with the intention of causing offence, if only by referring to Mohammad in the diminutive. I happen to have a friend called Mohammad, and he assures me nobody, friends or family, have ever referred to him in that way. I should think that Nawaz, as a Muslim is indeed offended, but to his credit, he was magnanimous enough to try appear otherwise.
Gillray, Rowlandson, and in our time; Scarfe and Steadman etc. have made quite vicious visual attacks against public figures and made no attempt whatsoever at anonymity.
I haven't seen any statistics, but your claim that 20,000 Muslims are signatories to supporting the death of this man are surely wrong, - protests maybe.
Gillray, Rowlandson, and in our time; Scarfe and Steadman etc. have made quite vicious visual attacks against public figures and made no attempt whatsoever at anonymity.
I haven't seen any statistics, but your claim that 20,000 Muslims are signatories to supporting the death of this man are surely wrong, - protests maybe.
Mr Nawaz, the co-founder of counter-extremism think-tank the Quilliam Foundation, posted the image after appearing in a BBC television debate about religious tolerance which featured two students wearing it on T-shirts.
He said that he was sending out the "bland" cartoon to show that, as a Muslim, he did not feel it was a threat to his faith and to demonstrate that "Muslims are able to see things we don't like, yet remain calm and pluralist".
"My intention was not to speak for any Muslim but myself - rather, it was to defend my religion from those who have hijacked it just because they shout the loudest," Mr Nawaz has said.
He said that he was sending out the "bland" cartoon to show that, as a Muslim, he did not feel it was a threat to his faith and to demonstrate that "Muslims are able to see things we don't like, yet remain calm and pluralist".
"My intention was not to speak for any Muslim but myself - rather, it was to defend my religion from those who have hijacked it just because they shout the loudest," Mr Nawaz has said.
@Khandro Sorry, that should have read " a petition of 20,000 signatures calling for the Lib Dems to deselect Nawaz as their PPC for Hampstead" - Not 20,000 death threats ;) There were,apparently around 5 death threats.
No ideal or philosophy is immune from criticism or ridicule. For those of religious faith to invoke blasphemy or hurt or outrage to stem criticism is childish and weak; If their faith is that strong, if their god is that great, then cartoons can be shrugged off, especially such innocuous ones as the Jesus and Mo cartoons.
Freedom of speech and expression, human rights are more important by far than the delicate religious sensibilities of some religious zealots.
Oh, and I have 2 mates whose first name is Mohammed. Guess what? both use the diminutive and are quite happy with it.
No ideal or philosophy is immune from criticism or ridicule. For those of religious faith to invoke blasphemy or hurt or outrage to stem criticism is childish and weak; If their faith is that strong, if their god is that great, then cartoons can be shrugged off, especially such innocuous ones as the Jesus and Mo cartoons.
Freedom of speech and expression, human rights are more important by far than the delicate religious sensibilities of some religious zealots.
Oh, and I have 2 mates whose first name is Mohammed. Guess what? both use the diminutive and are quite happy with it.
//Lg; I agree with most of what you are saying, however, my point is that no Muslims want their prophet derided, so quite simply - why do it?//
Possibly because the cartoonists weren't muslims and were making the point that religions can't make rules that apply to people outside their religion.
Are all these gods so impotent that they need devotees to fight their battles?
Possibly because the cartoonists weren't muslims and were making the point that religions can't make rules that apply to people outside their religion.
Are all these gods so impotent that they need devotees to fight their battles?
Only just notice my post got clipped (used an unusual character)
contd..
If fundamentalists (of all flavours) stopped going around making a fuss and telling *non-adherents* how to behave all the **** time then perhaps other people would be able to get along with them a bit better and even listen to whatever else it is they have to say.
contd..
If fundamentalists (of all flavours) stopped going around making a fuss and telling *non-adherents* how to behave all the **** time then perhaps other people would be able to get along with them a bit better and even listen to whatever else it is they have to say.
"There is no right not to be offended".
Another good article on this issue,for those interested.From the article;
"Believers have as much right to offend liberal sensibilities as liberals have the right to offend religious ones. Freedom of speech requires that everyone has the right to cause offence. So does freedom of religion"
http://
Another good article on this issue,for those interested.From the article;
"Believers have as much right to offend liberal sensibilities as liberals have the right to offend religious ones. Freedom of speech requires that everyone has the right to cause offence. So does freedom of religion"
http://
chrisgel; //religions can't make rules that apply to people outside their religion.//
True, but why, in an attempt to prove this point, do some people wish to overtly offend others? With everyone now, quite rightly, treading on eggshells taking care to not cause RACIAL discrimination, why do you appear to condone religious discrimination by this form of insult ?
True, but why, in an attempt to prove this point, do some people wish to overtly offend others? With everyone now, quite rightly, treading on eggshells taking care to not cause RACIAL discrimination, why do you appear to condone religious discrimination by this form of insult ?
thats the point, it's a cartoon, it's not supposed to be offensive, if some have taken it as such its their problem, i will post the thread on Pope Francis being depicted flying, as in superman, it's not offensive, why would anyone get upset like this, it's a mad idea that some can issue death threats over this, doesn't that make you more worried...
// With everyone now, quite rightly, treading on eggshells taking care to not cause RACIAL discrimination, why do you appear to condone religious discrimination by this form of insult ? //
Race isn't a choice, and belonging to a certain racial group doesn't say anything about you other than your physical appearance. No-one has any reasonable cause to judge or criticise anyone else solely on the basis of their race. It is clearly wrong to do so.
Defining yourself as a follower of a certain religious or political group is different. It says that you follow a certain set of beliefs. It's perfectly reasonable for others to question, criticise, and even make fun of those beliefs if they see fit. As I said before, it may seem impolite and insensitive for them to do so, but that's tough. It's not religious discrimination as you incorrectly characterise it.
Race isn't a choice, and belonging to a certain racial group doesn't say anything about you other than your physical appearance. No-one has any reasonable cause to judge or criticise anyone else solely on the basis of their race. It is clearly wrong to do so.
Defining yourself as a follower of a certain religious or political group is different. It says that you follow a certain set of beliefs. It's perfectly reasonable for others to question, criticise, and even make fun of those beliefs if they see fit. As I said before, it may seem impolite and insensitive for them to do so, but that's tough. It's not religious discrimination as you incorrectly characterise it.
"LG; Having looked at the links you offer, I can only conclude that your intake of reference is in bad need of expansion, - I wasn't aware of the existence of such drivel"
That's it? That's the extent of your argument in favour of appeasing zealots? You really are smug bubble of vacuity, aren't you?
That's it? That's the extent of your argument in favour of appeasing zealots? You really are smug bubble of vacuity, aren't you?
i have no desire to offend anyone, however i find it offensive when remarks are made, books are written, or cartoons are printed supposedly offensive to a few and death threats issued, think Salman Rushdie, who lived under a Fatwa for years, for writing a book, i cannot for the life of me fathom how anyone can see that as right.
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.