|
|
Post by Professor Cold Heart on Nov 2, 2011 12:10:31 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-magazine-in-paris-is-firebombed.htmlUh-oh - someone's blown something up again over a drawing of Mr. Muhammed. This time, it's the office of a French satirical magazine which plonked the Prophet on its cover and billed him as the guest editor. The attack took place in the early morning and the reports don't mention anyone being harmed, thankfully. The cover in question:  He's saying "100 lashes, if you don't die laughing". Which is a bit ironic, considering.
|
|
|
|
Post by id82 on Nov 2, 2011 17:00:10 GMT -5
Does that cartoon actually say he's Muhammed? I mean it could be Osama Bin Laden or someone like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 2, 2011 19:51:43 GMT -5
Could be any generic Muslim man, for that matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 2, 2011 20:10:35 GMT -5
It says "Mahomet" in the red sticker at the top of the page.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 2, 2011 20:32:03 GMT -5
Obviously the attacks are unacceptable and everyone involved should be fully prosecuted to the last limit of the law.
But that front cover is bigoted, as were many of the Danish cartoons (or at least the alleged ones). Making fun of Jesus is one thing- there is no such thing as a persecuted Western Christian. Making fun of Mohammed is a completely different story; Muslim's are a persecuted minority. Making fun of that persecuted minority perpetuates that persecution, just like making (perhaps legitimate) criticisms of Judaism in 1940s Germany perpetuated the holocaust.
It's also silly criticism. Every religion has unnecessary punishments for non-crimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 2, 2011 20:41:29 GMT -5
Obviously the attacks are unacceptable and everyone involved should be fully prosecuted to the last limit of the law. But that front cover is bigoted, as were many of the Danish cartoons (or at least the alleged ones). Making fun of Jesus is one thing- there is no such thing as a persecuted Western Christian. Making fun of Mohammed is a completely different story; Muslim's are a persecuted minority. Making fun of that persecuted minority perpetuates that persecution, just like making (perhaps legitimate) criticisms of Judaism in 1940s Germany perpetuated the holocaust. It's also silly criticism. Every religion has unnecessary punishments for non-crimes. Wha...? Fred... I'm going to give you the benfit of the doubt here, and assume this was posted in haste. Could you maybe talk a once over at what you wrote, and see if, maybe, you want to make some minor corrections before I respond to it? |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 2, 2011 23:12:02 GMT -5
Mockery is not persecution.
|
|
|
|
Post by largeham on Nov 2, 2011 23:26:07 GMT -5
Meh. At least Muslims are serious about there stance against pictures of God or Mohammed *cough* Catholics *cough*. If it was racist, then that would be a different issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Nov 2, 2011 23:32:55 GMT -5
Meh. At least Muslims are serious about there stance against pictures of God or Mohammed *cough* Catholics *cough*. If it was racist, then that would be a different issue. Wow... Where to start. To begin with, religious fanaticism, even with supposed consistency, is not an admirable quality in any sense of the word. I say "supposed" because Islam bans the depiction of its four major prophets, one of whom is Jesus. Funny how they don't seem to bat an eyelid at all the pictures/statues of the guy plastered all over the world. Also, *their. |
|
|
|
Post by largeham on Nov 3, 2011 0:46:29 GMT -5
I did not mean to condone religious fanaticism. I meant meh in that this has happened before, I'm not surprised at the outrage. I couldn't care less what that cartoonist drew or blasphemous it was. The amount of fucks I give over their anger is zero.
Also, I did not know that Jesus was one of the people who's face it is forbidden to show according to Islam, I just thought it was god and Mohammed. Even then, maybe Muslims do complain, they just think there are bigger issues or it would be even less popular than their other views. I just meant that many Catholics seem to have forgotten part of the 2nd commandment: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth".
P.S. My apologies over the 'there'.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 3, 2011 1:30:58 GMT -5
Meh. At least Muslims are serious about there stance against pictures of God or Mohammed *cough* Catholics *cough*. If it was racist, then that would be a different issue. Wow... Where to start. To begin with, religious fanaticism, even with supposed consistency, is not an admirable quality in any sense of the word. I say "supposed" because Islam bans the depiction of its four major prophets, one of whom is Jesus. Funny how they don't seem to bat an eyelid at all the pictures/statues of the guy plastered all over the world. Also, *their. Really? I did not know that, how very interesting! Is that based on a sura, or one of those other things they base their weirdo practices on...a hadith I think? |
|
|
|
Post by Professor Cold Heart on Nov 3, 2011 12:14:30 GMT -5
It's also silly criticism. Every religion has unnecessary punishments for non-crimes. The cover isn't the extent of their commentary - the whole issue presents Muhummed as a "guest editor", so I'd say the text on the cover works as a spoof advertising slogan. It's being done as a comment on the Islamist victory in the Tunisian elections - from what I gather, the gag is that putting a deceased religious figure in charge of a newspaper is no sillier than putting him in charge (figuratively) of a country. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Nov 3, 2011 12:29:58 GMT -5
I did not mean to condone religious fanaticism. I meant meh in that this has happened before, I'm not surprised at the outrage. I couldn't care less what that cartoonist drew or blasphemous it was. The amount of fucks I give over their anger is zero. Also, I did not know that Jesus was one of the people who's face it is forbidden to show according to Islam, I just thought it was god and Mohammed. Even then, maybe Muslims do complain, they just think there are bigger issues or it would be even less popular than their other views. I just meant that many Catholics seem to have forgotten part of the 2nd commandment: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth". P.S. My apologies over the 'there'. Fair enough then, I thought you were saying that you don't care that Muslims are killing people over their imaginary friend as long as they're consistent about it. As for the Catholics, the justification is that the images of God is forbidden because God is beyond human understanding and thus any attempt to portray him will fail miserably. However, because Jesus is both human and God, it means that God has taken on a form that is able to be seen and understood at least visually by humans, and as such portraying that form at least is fine. Though things like the Sistine Chapel that have pictures of God himself are indeed officially not cool by Catholic rules. In any case though, it's religion. Consistency and general use of logic are about as rare as female video game characters with realistically sized titties. Really? I did not know that, how very interesting! Is that based on a sura, or one of those other things they base their weirdo practices on...a hadith I think? I think it's in the Qu'ran, though I'm not certain of that. |
|
|
|
Post by Professor Cold Heart on Nov 3, 2011 12:43:23 GMT -5
I'm kind of curious as to why cartoons mocking Allah are apparently acceptable, as seen in this strip from the Guardian:  Surely this should be even worse than the Muhummed cartoons, according to these people? |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Nov 3, 2011 12:45:58 GMT -5
I'm kind of curious as to why cartoons mocking Allah are apparently acceptable, as seen in this strip from the Guardian: Surely this should be even worse than the Muhummed cartoons, according to these people? I'm sure those cartoons would be worse, if anyone could actually make any sense of them. |
|
