Reform Gaining Huge Numbers Of Votes...
News0 min ago
Jesus & Mo cartoon.
51 Answers
http://www.dailymail....-posted-Facebook.html
Apparently the cartoon has upset a student Muslim group, which in turn has forced the University atheist society president to resign.
/// The association's national spokesperson, Adam Walker, said the two student groups had worked well together in the past and said the offence was unnecessary.///
/// He said: 'The principle is more important than who is being attacked - this time it is Muslims and Christians but in the future it could be atheists themselves. ///
I can see no mention of Christians being offended, so can we take it that it was just the Muslims who took offence.
The Daily Mail have chosen not to publish the offending cartoon, to enable one to come to a personal decision of whether or not the cartoon is offensive.
But I found a copy on the web and have entered it below, please do not look if you are also easily offended.
http://1.bp.blogspot....1600/jesus-and-mo.jpg
Apparently the cartoon has upset a student Muslim group, which in turn has forced the University atheist society president to resign.
/// The association's national spokesperson, Adam Walker, said the two student groups had worked well together in the past and said the offence was unnecessary.///
/// He said: 'The principle is more important than who is being attacked - this time it is Muslims and Christians but in the future it could be atheists themselves. ///
I can see no mention of Christians being offended, so can we take it that it was just the Muslims who took offence.
The Daily Mail have chosen not to publish the offending cartoon, to enable one to come to a personal decision of whether or not the cartoon is offensive.
But I found a copy on the web and have entered it below, please do not look if you are also easily offended.
http://1.bp.blogspot....1600/jesus-and-mo.jpg
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Baldric
/// More reproduction of others work and no question, what is your point? ///
There was a question, I just forgot to add a question mark, but then most would have not needed that visual aid to notice that it was indeed a question.
One needs to produce a certain amount of 'others work', because some demand the link to the news story, and then one has to go to the trouble of reproducing some relevant text because some are too lazy to read the whole story.
I also typed four paragraphs of my own words, which I deemed enough to get my point over.
Just because you still cannot see the point, it is a sad reflection on yourself at not being able to see the point, and not of me being unable to get my point across..
/// More reproduction of others work and no question, what is your point? ///
There was a question, I just forgot to add a question mark, but then most would have not needed that visual aid to notice that it was indeed a question.
One needs to produce a certain amount of 'others work', because some demand the link to the news story, and then one has to go to the trouble of reproducing some relevant text because some are too lazy to read the whole story.
I also typed four paragraphs of my own words, which I deemed enough to get my point over.
Just because you still cannot see the point, it is a sad reflection on yourself at not being able to see the point, and not of me being unable to get my point across..
You give the impression of a very unsavoury character,AOG!
Does everyday begin with you scouring The Daily Mail,looking for a story/non-story,which will enable you pick a fight,or attempt to belittle people who disagree?
Here you have found,yet again,a non-story.No doubt confected using Daily Mail journalism manual 101...find one person to complain,or failing that,call someone,and say "Ooooh,dont you think this is awful"! and then print their reply!
Meat & Drink for a DM reader!They love nothing better than an opportunity to splutter into their breakfast each morning!
Does everyday begin with you scouring The Daily Mail,looking for a story/non-story,which will enable you pick a fight,or attempt to belittle people who disagree?
Here you have found,yet again,a non-story.No doubt confected using Daily Mail journalism manual 101...find one person to complain,or failing that,call someone,and say "Ooooh,dont you think this is awful"! and then print their reply!
Meat & Drink for a DM reader!They love nothing better than an opportunity to splutter into their breakfast each morning!
I understand that Muslims have taken offence because the vidsiaul depicition of their prophet is against their creed, and does cause serious upset, as has been evidenced in the past.
It is very easy for the offender to blame the offended - but it's not really a viable defence, otherwise anything could be defended on the basis that the issue lies with the offended and their lack of humour / understanding / a life, delete as applicable.
Second-guessing the notion that the 'attack' could focus on atheists in the future is again spurious - as i understand it, the Muslims who are upset are offended by the image, which does not equate into an attack on anybody, now or in the future.
As far as the Mail not publishing - I would imagine they could run foul of laws governing offensive material, given that it is a known fact that images of living creatures are forbidden in Muslim culture.
In conclusion, i think the publication of the cartoom was ill-judged, and its removal and an apology should sort the matter out. Absence of a faith by one section of society does not condone ignoring the rules of believers, and upsetting them in the process.
It is very easy for the offender to blame the offended - but it's not really a viable defence, otherwise anything could be defended on the basis that the issue lies with the offended and their lack of humour / understanding / a life, delete as applicable.
Second-guessing the notion that the 'attack' could focus on atheists in the future is again spurious - as i understand it, the Muslims who are upset are offended by the image, which does not equate into an attack on anybody, now or in the future.
As far as the Mail not publishing - I would imagine they could run foul of laws governing offensive material, given that it is a known fact that images of living creatures are forbidden in Muslim culture.
In conclusion, i think the publication of the cartoom was ill-judged, and its removal and an apology should sort the matter out. Absence of a faith by one section of society does not condone ignoring the rules of believers, and upsetting them in the process.
I obviously posted about this topic in the wrong section :)
http://www.theanswerb.../Question1094450.html
And it would appear that the issue drags on and on. First the complaint from the muslim society to the student union, then the complaint by the student union to the atheist society. Then a refusal to remove the image by the atheist society,coupled with some high profile supporters speaking out - then the UCL student union retracting their complaint. A victory for common sense, is what I thought.
Now, it would appear that the Muslim Society has not given up, and is still attempting to apply pressure, to effectively introduce religious censorship, on the grounds that cartoon images might offend their delicate sensibilities.Well, personally I find such attempts at censorship on religious grounds pretty darned offensive.
We pride ourselves as being a mature, secular, largely liberal society, built on foundations of values such as fairness, and tolerance, and individual liberty; We see ourselves as champions of the concept of free speech (so long as such free speech is not an incitement of hate).These are values to be cherished and nurtured. Such attempts at censorship run directly counter to our cultural values and should be firmly resisted.
http://www.theanswerb.../Question1094450.html
And it would appear that the issue drags on and on. First the complaint from the muslim society to the student union, then the complaint by the student union to the atheist society. Then a refusal to remove the image by the atheist society,coupled with some high profile supporters speaking out - then the UCL student union retracting their complaint. A victory for common sense, is what I thought.
Now, it would appear that the Muslim Society has not given up, and is still attempting to apply pressure, to effectively introduce religious censorship, on the grounds that cartoon images might offend their delicate sensibilities.Well, personally I find such attempts at censorship on religious grounds pretty darned offensive.
We pride ourselves as being a mature, secular, largely liberal society, built on foundations of values such as fairness, and tolerance, and individual liberty; We see ourselves as champions of the concept of free speech (so long as such free speech is not an incitement of hate).These are values to be cherished and nurtured. Such attempts at censorship run directly counter to our cultural values and should be firmly resisted.
Ludwig - "I'm not a believer - why should I observe the rules of someone elses faith?"
because allowing for the sensitivities of others helps the world turn. To observe this particular aspect of Muslim creed does not in any detract from you or your life experience, so why not simply go along with it?
That way, when Muslims who believe in Halal slaughter of animals won't come round and do it outside your living room window.
An extreme example I know - but if we cannot allow for others' attitudes and creeds, we cannot expect them to allow for ours - and that way lies anarchy.
because allowing for the sensitivities of others helps the world turn. To observe this particular aspect of Muslim creed does not in any detract from you or your life experience, so why not simply go along with it?
That way, when Muslims who believe in Halal slaughter of animals won't come round and do it outside your living room window.
An extreme example I know - but if we cannot allow for others' attitudes and creeds, we cannot expect them to allow for ours - and that way lies anarchy.
