Flutterby™! : Offensensitivity

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics


2006-02-03 19:30:40.406439+00 by Dan Lyke 10 comments

For those of you following foreign news at home: Here are those cartoons with drawings of Mohammed from the Danish newspaper that are causing all of those quarrels, along with a backgounder on the situation:

Meanwhile an international organization of Muslim intellectuals has threatened to mobilize “millions of Muslims all over the World” to boycott Danish and Norwegian products unless the Danish and Norwegian government condemn the publication of the cartoons, which is called an “attack on the Muslims of the World and on the Prophet.”

Yeah. Apologies if you're one of the Muslims who isn't a raving nutcase, but if you are, can you petition the Danish and Norwegian governments to make a strong statement and shut these lunatics up, maybe by claiming trademark infringement or defamation of character or something? Because, frankly, they're making this peace loving hippy think that superior firepower may indeed be the solution to the problems of the Middle East.

[ related topics: Religion Humor moron Current Events Journalism and Media ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2006-02-03 20:05:20.245818+00 by: Dan Lyke

Ahh, good, once again we're standing up for freedom: U.S. State Department calls cartoons "offensive".

I'm not generally in the habit of doing this, but here are the cartoons taken from the article above, just in case they go away elsewhere.

#Comment Re: made: 2006-02-04 03:19:53.992959+00 by: meuon

Well, heck. I'm finding many Muslims even more offensive, But that the US State Department finds it so makes me wonder what happened to the 1st Amendment.

Sure it's not our country being flamed for once, but do we stand by the principles this country was founded on?

Oh, that was a stupid question. Ugh.

#Comment Re: made: 2006-02-05 17:08:45.43783+00 by: polly

i keep getting the feeling that the muslims are trying to take over the world :< i look at cnn/headline news for info about iraq (keeping up with brother's status over there) and the news is all about what the muslim factions are upset about. who cares? and now the iranians are mad at everyone/u.n./u.s. and is making threats about raising the cost of oil. i feel that a noose is slipping around our necks and is getting tighter and tighter. what is going to happen next?

#Comment Re: made: 2006-02-07 20:05:40.917635+00 by: Dan Lyke

Retecool had a photo retouching thread, trying to take the offensive portrayals of Mohammed that extra mile (Via the Primary Main Objective).

#Comment Re: made: 2006-02-09 21:43:19.216844+00 by: Dan Lyke

Sacred Cow Tipping on the subject:

I'd like to point out to my riotous Muslim friends, that you didn't see Buddhists burning down buildings, rioting, and shooting people when priceless, 2,000 year-old Buddha statues were destroyed by Afghanistan's Taliban government in 2001. Not only were these works of art, they existed way before Muhammad was ever a gleam in Allah's eye.

#Comment Re: made: 2006-02-15 20:50:18.308409+00 by: eric

I would like to ask the same muslim friends why it is that these cartoons (which I did find in poor taste, but well) sparked massive riots, while the thousands of terrorist attacks that have been perpretated in the name of Allah over the last couple of decades have not elicitated a single sympathetic response in any muslim country.

An apology for at least some of the more gratituous acts of terrorism would not come amiss.

#Comment Re: made: 2006-02-15 20:56:31.350436+00 by: Dan Lyke

The way I figure it, every member of an organization or group is responsible for maintaining the public image of that group. Rioting because you're perceived to be a bunch of violent fuckwits is two things:

  1. It's shooting the messenger.
  2. It's reinforcing the image.

If the cartoons were in poor taste before the riots, they're not now.

#Comment Re: [Entry #8608] Re: made: 2006-02-15 22:46:03.192632+00 by: Unknown, from NNTP

Dan Lyke <danlyke@flutterby.com> writes:

>    The way I figure it, every member of an organization or group is
>    responsible for maintaining the public image of that group. 

How do you handle the case of people that you don't want to be part of your group claiming that they are? (And then acting in a way that reflects poorly on your group.) For example, I try really, really hard not to assume that *all* Christians are ignorant Luddite repressionary fascist fsckwads just because a subset of Christians quite clearly are. Your position would[Wiki] be a useful simplifying assumption, but I'm not sure it's valid.

#Comment Re: made: 2006-02-15 23:20:55.200167+00 by: Dan Lyke

I believe that of the groups currently defining what Christianity is, only the United Church of Christ is proactively working to distance themselves from those who'd disgrace the brand. I think that more Christians need to stand up and call out the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons as "not Christian", publicly repudiating the hatred.

Because if they don't, if Christians continue to be silent in the face of that evil, then how am I to judge the name?

The jews have had this problem with the alleged "Jews for Jesus", and in my experience have been pretty good about getting to the media and showing all the ways in which those who use that moniker aren't Jews. And a number of evangelical churches are making inroads in distinguishing Christianity from Catholicism. I think that if Christians care about the brand value, it's up to those involved to start speaking out when they see that brand abused.

#Comment Re: made: 2006-02-16 15:12:55.643016+00 by: meuon

Christian<tm>. Such a broad brand, claimed by all factions whom all claim to be the "true and only" representation thereof. Tribal leaders convincing others that only their exact recipe for Christianiity is the One True Way(tm). Still, they will not publically confront or cause issue with the other tribes/franchises. "Let thee whom is without sin cast the first stone" is one way of saying it. "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones" is another.