****** vs Images of Muhammed

[manifold]

Is being sensitive to the beliefs of Muslims and not publishing images of the prophet Muhammed materially different from being sensitive to black people and not using the term ****** (apart from the obvious difference that one is seen and the other heard)?

Discuss

 

[Valerie]

Is being sensitive to the beliefs of Muslims and not publishing images of the prophet Muhammed materially different from being sensitive to black people and not using the term ****** (apart from the obvious difference that one is seen and the other heard)?

Discuss

Materially different? Having respect for others transcends religion or race.


Does this idea go back to your notion that individuals are Gods???


I guess the material difference it is that calling one random black person a bad name does not necessarily extend to the entire race, whereas disparaging the image of Muhammed definitely offends many people by extension.

 

[manifold]

Is being sensitive to the beliefs of Muslims and not publishing images of the prophet Muhammed materially different from being sensitive to black people and not using the term ****** (apart from the obvious difference that one is seen and the other heard)?

Discuss

Materially different? Having respect for others transcends religion or race.


Does this idea go back to your notion that individuals are Gods???


I guess the material difference it is that calling one random black person a bad name does not necessarily extend to the entire race, whereas disparaging the image of Muhammed definitely offends many people by extension.

Perhaps, but I suspect that a lot of black people see the use of the term ****** by non-blacks (especially whites) as disparaging the entire race.

And no, this doesn't go back to the notion of individuals being gods.

The reason I asked this in the first place is because I think people (outside the target group) generally view the two "offenses" quite differently. Few people defended Kramer for his ****** tirade, but most non-muslims defended the cartoons of Muhammed, and essentially suggested that Muslims need to get the fuck over it. I know that the whole murder and death threat thing plays a part in peoples perceptions, but I'm not really sure why anyone would think one is ok and the other isn't.

 

[Valerie]

Is being sensitive to the beliefs of Muslims and not publishing images of the prophet Muhammed materially different from being sensitive to black people and not using the term ****** (apart from the obvious difference that one is seen and the other heard)?

Discuss

Materially different? Having respect for others transcends religion or race.


Does this idea go back to your notion that individuals are Gods???


I guess the material difference it is that calling one random black person a bad name does not necessarily extend to the entire race, whereas disparaging the image of Muhammed definitely offends many people by extension.

Perhaps, but I suspect that a lot of black people see the use of the term ****** by non-blacks (especially whites) as disparaging the entire race.

And no, this doesn't go back to the notion of individuals being gods.

The reason I asked this in the first place is because I think people (outside the target group) generally view the two "offenses" quite differently. Few people defended Kramer for his ****** tirade, but most non-muslims defended the cartoons of Muhammed, and essentially suggested that Muslims need to get the fuck over it. I know that the whole murder and death threat thing plays a part in peoples perceptions, but I'm not really sure why anyone would think one is ok and the other isn't.

I really can't even remember the rant or the cartoon, but I guess you can chalk it up to selective indignation.

 

[manifold]

I really can't even remember the rant or the cartoon, but I guess you can chalk it up to selective indignation.

Seems there is a lot of that going around.

 

[martybegan]

The on glaring difference I can see is ******, as a word can be used in a "fighting word" situation. It is more difficult to do that with a picture, although technically you could take one of the mohammed cartoons and wave it in a muslim's face.

 

[manifold]

The on glaring difference I can see is ******, as a word can be used in a "fighting word" situation. It is more difficult to do that with a picture, although technically you could take one of the mohammed cartoons and wave it in a muslim's face.

I suppose. But I'm talking more about the court of public opinion when it comes to each type of "offense."

 

[momonkey]

Is being sensitive to the beliefs of Muslims and not publishing images of the prophet Muhammed materially different from being sensitive to black people and not using the term ****** (apart from the obvious difference that one is seen and the other heard)?

Discuss

Materially different? Having respect for others transcends religion or race.


Does this idea go back to your notion that individuals are Gods???


I guess the material difference it is that calling one random black person a bad name does not necessarily extend to the entire race, whereas disparaging the image of Muhammed definitely offends many people by extension.

Perhaps, but I suspect that a lot of black people see the use of the term ****** by non-blacks (especially whites) as disparaging the entire race.

And no, this doesn't go back to the notion of individuals being gods.

The reason I asked this in the first place is because I think people (outside the target group) generally view the two "offenses" quite differently. Few people defended Kramer for his ****** tirade, but most non-muslims defended the cartoons of Muhammed, and essentially suggested that Muslims need to get the fuck over it. I know that the whole murder and death threat thing plays a part in peoples perceptions, but I'm not really sure why anyone would think one is ok and the other isn't.

Religions have different tenets like obedience, prayer, baptism, confession, etc. Here in America with our long tradition of religious tolerance (by world standards) we accept that others are legally and culturally free to ignore our own personal religious practices. When I was in grade school, the Catholic kids ate fish on Friday, but the rest of us could eat what we liked. We didn't have a controversy because non-Catholic kids ate meat on Friday or that the same lunch line was serving fish stick and sloppy joes.

Enter Muslims. Largely immigrants, Muslims have far less tolerance for the free expression of other religions and even less for anyone who feels free to ignore uniquely Islamic practices like not creating cartoons of Mohamed or not criticizing the Islamic religion. Bottom line is Islam is incompatible with a free society in which the rights of all are guaranteed.

 

[strollingbones]

okay sweet cakes i will type this real fucking slow...so you can get it...

******...anyone threatening to kill anyone over using ****** on tv?

did chapelle get death threats or his directors or his writers for the '****** family' skits?

do the directors and writers of the 'wire' i could just go on and on...

that sweet cakes if the fucking difference....

call me if you need anymore explaining

 

[Shogun]

Materially different? Having respect for others transcends religion or race.


Does this idea go back to your notion that individuals are Gods???


I guess the material difference it is that calling one random black person a bad name does not necessarily extend to the entire race, whereas disparaging the image of Muhammed definitely offends many people by extension.

Perhaps, but I suspect that a lot of black people see the use of the term ****** by non-blacks (especially whites) as disparaging the entire race.

And no, this doesn't go back to the notion of individuals being gods.

The reason I asked this in the first place is because I think people (outside the target group) generally view the two "offenses" quite differently. Few people defended Kramer for his ****** tirade, but most non-muslims defended the cartoons of Muhammed, and essentially suggested that Muslims need to get the fuck over it. I know that the whole murder and death threat thing plays a part in peoples perceptions, but I'm not really sure why anyone would think one is ok and the other isn't.

Religions have different tenets like obedience, prayer, baptism, confession, etc. Here in America with our long tradition of religious tolerance (by world standards) we accept that others are legally and culturally free to ignore our own personal religious practices. When I was in grade school, the Catholic kids ate fish on Friday, but the rest of us could eat what we liked. We didn't have a controversy because non-Catholic kids ate meat on Friday or that the same lunch line was serving fish stick and sloppy joes.

Enter Muslims. Largely immigrants, Muslims have far less tolerance for the free expression of other religions and even less for anyone who feels free to ignore uniquely Islamic practices like not creating cartoons of Mohamed or not criticizing the Islamic religion. Bottom line is Islam is incompatible with a free society in which the rights of all are guaranteed.

Given the last 100 years of court cases regarding artistic expression and the will of christian standards of decency posts like this illustrate the necessity of short buses and padded helmets. Islam in America functions quite well with our legal standards of freedom. But, leave it to some dense motherfucker to forget that we are all immigrants here and every wave of new cultures and traditions have been demonized in the same fashion as we see islam raked through the coals today.

 

[strollingbones]

o come on shogun....this is south park we are talking about..they are always fucking with everyone....you cant let these nutzos take over...you will have to react the same way the dutch did after the killing of van gogh

 

[strollingbones]

we cannot let the voices of genius....be taken out by the darkness of ignorance and hate...at some point we must make a stand...the threatening and killing of artists...sounds like a good place to start....the muslims in amercia do need to speak out..

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know.......any religion that takes itself too seriously is actually a cult, right?

Islam is a cult, and because they are a cult, they don't want anyone examining it too closely, as it won't stand up under close scrutiny.

Why else do you think they are so rabid about their fucked up prophet?

 

[Valerie]

we cannot let the voices of genius....be taken out by the darkness of ignorance and hate...at some point we must make a stand...the threatening and killing of artists...sounds like a good place to start....the muslims in amercia do need to speak out..

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to strollingbones again.



Drats!

 

[Shogun]

o come on shogun....this is south park we are talking about..they are always fucking with everyone....you cant let these nutzos take over...you will have to react the same way the dutch did after the killing of van gogh

oh no doubt. I'll defend Matt Stone and Trey Parker's right to talk shit in America. Good for them. But, I also defend the right to use words like ****** too.

however, given what I was responding to, it's just farcical to suggest that islam is less compatible with expression than any other faith when, for fucks sake, the Ferlinghetti Obscenity trial was conducted because of a gay poem.

 

[Shogun]

You know.......any religion that takes itself too seriously is actually a cult, right?

Islam is a cult, and because they are a cult, they don't want anyone examining it too closely, as it won't stand up under close scrutiny.

Why else do you think they are so rabid about their fucked up prophet?

dude.

 

[strollingbones]

you have a point it is the conservative movement that wants to stop funding for the arts

 

[manifold]

okay sweet cakes i will type this real fucking slow...so you can get it...

******...anyone threatening to kill anyone over using ****** on tv?

did chapelle get death threats or his directors or his writers for the '****** family' skits?

do the directors and writers of the 'wire' i could just go on and on...

that sweet cakes if the fucking difference....

call me if you need anymore explaining

The only thing slower than your typing is your mind if you think that even comes close to addressing the question.

 

[Valerie]

okay sweet cakes i will type this real fucking slow...so you can get it...

******...anyone threatening to kill anyone over using ****** on tv?

did chapelle get death threats or his directors or his writers for the '****** family' skits?

do the directors and writers of the 'wire' i could just go on and on...

that sweet cakes if the fucking difference....

call me if you need anymore explaining

The only thing slower than your typing is your mind if you think that even comes close to addressing the question.

I think she is seeing the consequences as a very real material difference, which I guess was your point, that it shouldn't be...?

 

[Kalam]

Depends. To give a bit of background information, depictions of Muhammad (SAWS) by kuffar aren't inherently offensive. Muslims were forbidden from depicting the prophet so that Islam wouldn't become steeped in iconography and other forms of idolatry; worshiping or praying to Muhammad or anything other than God is polytheism, and religious paintings and icons tend to give rise to those sorts of things (see Catholicism.) Simply drawing Muhammad out of ignorance of this commandment isn't insulting unless defamation was the artist's intention.

Calling somebody a "******" is similar in some ways and different in others. For the most part, it now seems that the word isn't inherently insulting unless it's used with malice or, in some people's minds, by a person who isn't black. "******" also has a history that the cartoons lack; nobody bullwhipped slaves while showing them drawings of the prophet. If "******" is used to express contempt for someone simply because they're black, it's probably more insulting than silly attempts to mock prophets. That being said, somebody in this thread already pointed out that few people would voice their support for someone who went around calling black people "*******", while the case with the cartoons seem to be just the opposite. This led to perceptions in the Muslim world that the West as a whole supported the cartoons and backlash ensued.

Every side has its idiots. Here are some of yours:
BUY DANISH