what was he thinkingcaptelensarFebruary 10 2006, 11:04:22 UTC
I agree that it wasn't the smartest move to do the drawings but do any religious beliefs rate killing for (not dieing for, thats another deal). a few years ago some christians were upset (and I think rightly so) over such things asa crucifix in a vat of urine and a Madonna with cow dung, no one rioted and no one was killed, and those that did protest were told 'its art, deal with it' my $.02
Re: what was he thinkingrenfairegirl03February 11 2006, 00:23:38 UTC
Dude, I remember those things, and I can definitely see where that would be offensive (and moreso after hearing 'it's art, deal with it' from people). Not worth killing people over, though. I hold to my previous statement of 'this is what happens when people take their religions too seriously.'
Hey, my stepdad is working in San Antonio now. We should take a road trip some weekend to go see him and hang out on the boardwalk and stuff. Whaddaya say? I'd have to go through Waco to get there anyways [beguiling smile]
I do agree that it was probably a stupid thing to print the cartoons in the first place, but...
And this is a big but...
I also agree with Captenselar that it does not justify the reaction. The Amish don't try to blow up Barbie factories because they put faces on their dolls (maybe they should, but that's a different thought all together). And this article makes a good point about the reaction of the average American to an English journalist insulting them.
This, to my mind, is more about the dichotomy between Islam and extremist Islam. Being tolerant and accepting of other cultures has to happen from both sides. And waving placards that say that terrorist attacks are justified, and people deserve to be decapitated is not an acceptable response to a cartoon, not matter how distasteful you find it. You don't like it? Don't buy the paper.
That's very true; it does have to happen from both sides. I'd already posted the 'there's something more fundamentally wrong with a religion that can get this upset' angle in an earlier post.
My main problem with the cartoonist is that he must have known, as everybody else knows, that Islam has extremists who are prone to violent actions, and yet he still went ahead and insulted their religion. I wonder if he knew what he was starting when he did this, or if he was just ignorant.
I imagine he hadn't thought it all the way through...
I can see your point, but where do we draw the line letting extremists dictate our thoughts and actions? If someone really wants to be angry about something, they will find something to get angry about. And it may not be the wisest thing to do to upset this person, but, still, they can "vote with their feet" and not buy the paper.
PS - I love how intellectual debate-y your journal is. It makes me squee inside. :)
Aw, thanks. I try to think as often as I can [grin].
That's a good point; at least some factions were going to be mad at the West anyways. We shouldn't censor ourselves out of a desire not to offend anybody, but I guess my main problem is that it seems like the guy heard about why there are no cartoons of Muhammed and said, "well they should have freedom of speech so I'm going to do the opposite of what they believe to prove it to them." I think that was a bad way of going about it--like you said, he didn't think it all the way through, and now people are killing each other over something that one side or the other could have avoided.
I wonder how many of these rioters actually saw the paper, seeing as the riots are all over the world and it took me a fair bit of Googling just to find images of the cartoons. It all goes back to the basis of extremism: people believing something they've heard but not researched and hurting other people to defend that implanted belief.
Comments 13
my $.02
Reply
Reply
(like ya do)
*giggle* I was just talking to mum about how I can quote Eddie with the best people in my life. *hug*
Reply
Reply
I lurve you too. *biggrin*
Reply
Reply
And this is a big but...
I also agree with Captenselar that it does not justify the reaction. The Amish don't try to blow up Barbie factories because they put faces on their dolls (maybe they should, but that's a different thought all together). And this article makes a good point about the reaction of the average American to an English journalist insulting them.
This, to my mind, is more about the dichotomy between Islam and extremist Islam. Being tolerant and accepting of other cultures has to happen from both sides. And waving placards that say that terrorist attacks are justified, and people deserve to be decapitated is not an acceptable response to a cartoon, not matter how distasteful you find it. You don't like it? Don't buy the paper.
Reply
My main problem with the cartoonist is that he must have known, as everybody else knows, that Islam has extremists who are prone to violent actions, and yet he still went ahead and insulted their religion. I wonder if he knew what he was starting when he did this, or if he was just ignorant.
Reply
I can see your point, but where do we draw the line letting extremists dictate our thoughts and actions? If someone really wants to be angry about something, they will find something to get angry about. And it may not be the wisest thing to do to upset this person, but, still, they can "vote with their feet" and not buy the paper.
PS - I love how intellectual debate-y your journal is. It makes me squee inside. :)
Reply
That's a good point; at least some factions were going to be mad at the West anyways. We shouldn't censor ourselves out of a desire not to offend anybody, but I guess my main problem is that it seems like the guy heard about why there are no cartoons of Muhammed and said, "well they should have freedom of speech so I'm going to do the opposite of what they believe to prove it to them." I think that was a bad way of going about it--like you said, he didn't think it all the way through, and now people are killing each other over something that one side or the other could have avoided.
I wonder how many of these rioters actually saw the paper, seeing as the riots are all over the world and it took me a fair bit of Googling just to find images of the cartoons. It all goes back to the basis of extremism: people believing something they've heard but not researched and hurting other people to defend that implanted belief.
Reply
Leave a comment