Cartoons Cause Outrage- Again

[LazyGun]

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://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/29/in-the-u-k-channel-4-news-program-covers-up-a-jesus-and-mo-drawing-with-a-black-blob-to-avoid-giving-offense/

For myself, I am irritated at the BBC and C4 for the self-censorship, and irritated at these activists lobbying against Nawaz.

[mibn2cweus]

A triple digit outrage, apparently . . . hope (they're) happy. :o/

[ludwig]

// what has that got to do with the cartoons? //

I'm starting to find your deliberate obtuseness offensive khandro. Given your position of avoiding offense to people wherever possible, I'm sure you won't object to keeping your opinions to yourself from now on.

[birdie1971]

Hypognosis -

Ta muchly.

[naomi24]

Khandro, in defence of your position you use as an analogy a claim that images of Jesus and Buddha were originally forbidden so I was expecting a rather more substantial answer than the Ten Commandments and anonymous Buddhists. There is no comparison between that and the subject of this thread – not that anything could justify what is happening here.

[Khandro]

ludwig; No I most certainly will not! -who do you think you are? beso pointed out that we should counter the //unsavoury truth about Neo-Nazis// to which I have agreed and I apply the same sentiment to people making offensive, fatuous cartoons, - and those like you supporting them doing so.
In your 'Best Answer' awarded to you above, you say "the real problem is that someone is making light of something that they take very seriously" - Just like the Jews took their Jewishness very seriously in Europe of the 1930's. Would you like to see some of the early National Socialist anti-Jewish cartoons?
I suggest that behind the cloak of "freedom of expression" you hide a rather unpleasant lack of tolerance to the beliefs of others.

[naomi24]

Khandro, That is a shameful insult to the Jews. If you must resort to using the Nazi analogy I would suggest you have it the wrong way around.

[Khandro]

n. What on earth do you mean by 'insult' what I'm saying is 100% in support of Jews, perhaps we do speak different languages - you asked be for information about early Christian and Buddhist iconography, when I give it in short, it's not good enough. If you really wanted a comprehensive factual answer all you need do is go to the internet, or perhaps that doesn't give you something to argue with enough.

[naomi24]

Khandro, I’m beginning to wonder just which language you do speak. Simply by comparing the Jews of the 1930s to the Muslims of today who demand that everyone else capitulate to their will you insult the Jews. The Nazis did that – not the Jews.

[Khandro]

//the Muslims of today who demand that everyone else capitulate to their will// What absolute rubbish, of all the Muslims I've met - and I've travelled a lot - not one has proselytised or suggested I change my beliefs in any way whatsoever, of course I would remove my shoes if I entered a mosque, out of respect, that's about the only "demand". Asking not to have your religion insulted is not a demand as i see it.

[ludwig]

// ludwig; No I most certainly will not! -who do you think you are? //

Exactly. I'm surprised you missed the irony there.

[naomi24]

Khandro, You clearly haven't met the 20,000 who signed the petition and who have no respect for other people's freedoms.

[ludwig]

// I suggest that behind the cloak of "freedom of expression" you hide a rather unpleasant lack of tolerance to the beliefs of others. //

You're wrong. I don't care what people believe or who they want to worship. What I object to is people insisting I must treat their beliefs with the same reverence that they do.

I may choose to do so as a courtesy, to humour them as it were, but I don't think they should expect it as a right. The thing I don't want to tolerate is the intolerance of some religious groups to other peoples behaviour that aren't part of their religion. If not tolerating intolerance makes me intolerant, then I suppose I'm intolerant.

It's good that you're willing to put up a spirited case for the defence of this nonsense, but if you're honest, we both know it's a pretty flimsy one.

[chrisgel]

//What absolute rubbish, of all the Muslims I've met - and I've travelled a lot - not one has proselytised or suggested I change my beliefs in any way whatsoever//

Presumably the 20,000 signatories of the petition are the "higher" grade muslims mentioned in Quran 4:95
"Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-"

You would appear to have been lucky on your travels Khandro and only ever met the "lower" grade ones.

[Khandro]

Out of curiosity and not having seen the wording of the internet petition, I have just looked it up;

"The Petition:
Please sign this petition to have Maajid Nawaz removed from his post as the Liberal Democrats' Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn. We have raised this petition because of the offensive and disrespectful images Maajid Nawaz has posted on facebook and twitter of the Prophet's Muhammad and Jesus (peace be upon them)."

The way it was worded it appears that Nawaz was himself the perpetrator of these images, a cruel deception to those who do not know otherwise. As this took place outside of the public domain we have no way of knowing if the numbers were even accurate.
However, they claim to have received 22,144 signatories and they "needed" 77,144.

[jomifl]

Like most believers, the 'offended' muslims are only offended because they choose to obey those bits of dogma (hadith?) that oblige them to be offended. Many muslims appear not to do so yet they are muslims so being offended appears to come down to a matter of choice. Perhaps life would be more pleasant for everyone if they could only choose differentlyand stop being complete @rseholes.

[naomi24]

Khandro, what cruel deception? LazyGun's link confirms that Mr Nawaz posted the cartoon on social websites - or am I missing something.

[naomi24]

*^?

[Khandro]

am I missing something. --- yes

[jomifl]

Yes Khandro, it's that bloody elephant again :o)

[naomi24]

Khandro, Thought not.

The cartoonist’s response:

http://www.jesusandmo.net/

(Did you think about what Ludwig said at 11:59 Sun 02nd Feb 2014?).