Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Cartoons Cause Outrage- Again
128 Answers
A mini- storm has erupted, yet again, over a cartoon. This time it is an innocuous Jesus and Mo cartoon, worn on the T-shirts of 2 atheist studio guests debating religion on a BBC TV show. The BBC chose to censor the image of the T-shirts by pixillating them. Maajid Nawaz, also a guest on the show, an one-time islamic fundamentalist radical and now head of the Quilliam Foundation, was prompted to tweet that the image was innocuous and that God was greater than the outrage prompted by the image itself.
Cue hysterical muslim outrage, death threats - and a petition, organised by a muslim LibDem activist, to bar Nawaz from being the Lib-Dem PPC for Hampstead, which has, apparently, garnered 20,000 signatures, all presumably from outraged and offended UK muslims.
Then C4 get in the act, this time censoring the image of mohammed during their transmission.
Should we really be deferring to nonsensical religious sensibilities this way, by pro-actively censoring innocuous imagery that "might" cause offence to some?
http://
For myself, I am irritated at the BBC and C4 for the self-censorship, and irritated at these activists lobbying against Nawaz.
Cue hysterical muslim outrage, death threats - and a petition, organised by a muslim LibDem activist, to bar Nawaz from being the Lib-Dem PPC for Hampstead, which has, apparently, garnered 20,000 signatures, all presumably from outraged and offended UK muslims.
Then C4 get in the act, this time censoring the image of mohammed during their transmission.
Should we really be deferring to nonsensical religious sensibilities this way, by pro-actively censoring innocuous imagery that "might" cause offence to some?
http://
For myself, I am irritated at the BBC and C4 for the self-censorship, and irritated at these activists lobbying against Nawaz.
Answers
Actually khandro, the real problem is that someone is making light of something that they take very seriously, and that makes them very angry. Couple that with a belief that a god wants you to act on his behalf to prevent/
09:15 Thu 30th Jan 2014
The proposal that insulting a religious icon is an offence stems from the notion that one's deity would punish a whole society for the infringements of a few.
In the world of the faithful, it is one's duty is to comply for the sake of the safety of all. It is blatant manipulation through guilt and is reinforced by the satisfaction promoted through the punishment of the infringers by the faithful.
The examples of this mindset in the holy texts are so abundant that I need not bother to enumerate them.
Incongruously, few motivations show such a lack of faith as the motivation to kill any who do not subscribe to the notion that our experiences are governed by the whim of an all-knowing god. Surely if one truly believes in something, the opinions of others should be irrelevant?
In the world of the faithful, it is one's duty is to comply for the sake of the safety of all. It is blatant manipulation through guilt and is reinforced by the satisfaction promoted through the punishment of the infringers by the faithful.
The examples of this mindset in the holy texts are so abundant that I need not bother to enumerate them.
Incongruously, few motivations show such a lack of faith as the motivation to kill any who do not subscribe to the notion that our experiences are governed by the whim of an all-knowing god. Surely if one truly believes in something, the opinions of others should be irrelevant?
LG; Full marks for the insult :-) but your charge of vacuity is misplaced, and I think it should be aimed at those dreadful atheist websites you have pointed out to us. You see, the atheist's portfolio is a very slim one; it comprises of only one page, and on that page is only one sentence, something like; "I don't believe in God, and any religion predicated on that belief is therefore null and void." - and that's it really! (jomifl pointed out something like this on another thread recently)
To see entire websites full of atheists congratulating one another on the correctness of their view, and how anyone thinking differently is stupid - or in your own word 'vacuous' I find an amusing enigma. Having iterated this ad nauseum, there seems little else for them to do but start to attack the 'believers'.
To see entire websites full of atheists congratulating one another on the correctness of their view, and how anyone thinking differently is stupid - or in your own word 'vacuous' I find an amusing enigma. Having iterated this ad nauseum, there seems little else for them to do but start to attack the 'believers'.
Khandro - //Having iterated this ad nauseum, there seems little else for them to do but start to attack the 'believers'.//
This is somewhat ironic given the subject of the OP.
Do you really believe that atheists should just keep their "guilty" secret to themselves and allow the religious to continue having undue influence on society.
The atheism/religion debate is ongoing. While the religious keep coming up with new interpretations (apologetics) to counter the arguments of atheists the atheists will refine their arguments to take this into account.
I truly don't understand why you find this to be unusual.
It's called debate.
This is somewhat ironic given the subject of the OP.
Do you really believe that atheists should just keep their "guilty" secret to themselves and allow the religious to continue having undue influence on society.
The atheism/religion debate is ongoing. While the religious keep coming up with new interpretations (apologetics) to counter the arguments of atheists the atheists will refine their arguments to take this into account.
I truly don't understand why you find this to be unusual.
It's called debate.
@Khandro. There you go again. Rather than challenge the myopic vision of the zealots, crying out for censorship, the removal of someone as prospective PC for "not being insulted", or the need by some to defend their god against any perceived insult by mob rule - nevermind the fact that their supposed god, should it exist, should be a long long way above such pettiness - you choose to use the whole sorry mess as yet another excuse to launch an assault on "atheists", for whom you carry a chip on your shoulder the size of a small mountain.
Smug bubble of vacuity barely does justice to the redundancy of your contributions to this discussion.
Smug bubble of vacuity barely does justice to the redundancy of your contributions to this discussion.
LG; Regarding your OP and subsequent posts, I have already said I agree with what you are saying, but also, as I've stated, I wish to make the point that these cartoons are of malicious intent, viz. to overtly, knowingly, cause insult, and my question is, why do it? - please don't answer that it is something to do with being free to do so. Freedom of speech does not allow one to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
"why do it?"
It's a form of commentary. Personally, I think some of the Jesus & Mo cartoons hit on some incisive points (insofar as any cartoon does).
For another, I think it's always a way of resisting the idea that I must necessarily hold sacred the things that someone else does. The view that people who are non-Muslims are obliged to treat the prophet in the same way as Muslims do simply isn't a valid opinion. Being told (ordered) not to mock something is in itself a reason to mock it.
It's a form of commentary. Personally, I think some of the Jesus & Mo cartoons hit on some incisive points (insofar as any cartoon does).
For another, I think it's always a way of resisting the idea that I must necessarily hold sacred the things that someone else does. The view that people who are non-Muslims are obliged to treat the prophet in the same way as Muslims do simply isn't a valid opinion. Being told (ordered) not to mock something is in itself a reason to mock it.
Kahandro // I wish to make the point that these cartoons are of malicious intent, viz. to overtly, knowingly, cause insult,//
They beliefs of the religious knowingly insult rational intelligence. They are looking for a fight. If they can't find one easily enough they separate into factions.
Abrahamic faiths are all about conflict and arrogant dismissal of any alternative belief. It is fundamental to their philosophy and the reason why they are so obsessed with death.
Never been any different. Mohammed wasn't even cold before the Shi'a and Sunni split.
They beliefs of the religious knowingly insult rational intelligence. They are looking for a fight. If they can't find one easily enough they separate into factions.
Abrahamic faiths are all about conflict and arrogant dismissal of any alternative belief. It is fundamental to their philosophy and the reason why they are so obsessed with death.
Never been any different. Mohammed wasn't even cold before the Shi'a and Sunni split.
// For another, I think it's always a way of resisting the idea that I must necessarily hold sacred the things that someone else does. The view that people who are non-Muslims are obliged to treat the prophet in the same way as Muslims do simply isn't a valid opinion. Being told (ordered) not to mock something is in itself a reason to mock it. //
This is true. I think it's actually more about establishing your own credentials as an atheist rather than a 'malicious' attempt to 'insult' the religious. The people wearing those t-shirts are saying 'I don't respect or revere these things. You may - that's your choice - but I don't, and I won't be bound by the rules that say I should, because they're internal rules for a club that I'm not a member of'.
This is true. I think it's actually more about establishing your own credentials as an atheist rather than a 'malicious' attempt to 'insult' the religious. The people wearing those t-shirts are saying 'I don't respect or revere these things. You may - that's your choice - but I don't, and I won't be bound by the rules that say I should, because they're internal rules for a club that I'm not a member of'.
ludwig; // they're internal rules for a club that I'm not a member of'.//
Correct! but no one is insisting you join that club, and common decency might prevent you from feeling the need for the gratuitous mockery which Kromo thinks is warranted simply BECAUSE someone holds that club's precepts sacred. Why not leave people alone and not overtly try to antagonise them by making fatuous images designed to be hurtful?
Correct! but no one is insisting you join that club, and common decency might prevent you from feeling the need for the gratuitous mockery which Kromo thinks is warranted simply BECAUSE someone holds that club's precepts sacred. Why not leave people alone and not overtly try to antagonise them by making fatuous images designed to be hurtful?
"Correct! but no one is insisting you join that club, and common decency might prevent you from feeling the need for the gratuitous mockery which Kromo thinks is warranted simply BECAUSE someone holds that club's precepts sacred. Why not leave people alone and not overtly try to antagonise them by making fatuous images designed to be hurtful?"
That does not work either as an argument - firstly, because whether an image is fatuous or not is an entirely subjective decision. Whether those of faith get offended or not is down to them, and it seems that many are simply looking for an excuse to be offended.
The UK has had a long tradition of satirical and often vicious humour, going all the way back to William Hogarth, and taking in Scarfe and Searle amongst others, along the way.Political satirical cartoons are still relevant and popular today.
Many of the depictions in those cartoons could be described as hurtful, or vicious to the individuals of philosophies or ideas that are lampooned, but we do not talk about banning these. Why not? Because freedom of speech and freedom of expression are important to our culture and deserve protection.
And in this, religion is no different, just because some of the more zealous believers think the ideas that propel their version of organised religion are handed down from a supreme deity. That does not offer any special protection from ridicule. If you don't like it the ridicule, grow a thicker skin, or look away.
In this country you are free to worship whoever you want; free to assemble in buildings of worship of your choice, and that's fine and dandy. But you are not free to export your intolerance, your thin skin, onto others,most especially if they are not members of your particular club.
That does not work either as an argument - firstly, because whether an image is fatuous or not is an entirely subjective decision. Whether those of faith get offended or not is down to them, and it seems that many are simply looking for an excuse to be offended.
The UK has had a long tradition of satirical and often vicious humour, going all the way back to William Hogarth, and taking in Scarfe and Searle amongst others, along the way.Political satirical cartoons are still relevant and popular today.
Many of the depictions in those cartoons could be described as hurtful, or vicious to the individuals of philosophies or ideas that are lampooned, but we do not talk about banning these. Why not? Because freedom of speech and freedom of expression are important to our culture and deserve protection.
And in this, religion is no different, just because some of the more zealous believers think the ideas that propel their version of organised religion are handed down from a supreme deity. That does not offer any special protection from ridicule. If you don't like it the ridicule, grow a thicker skin, or look away.
In this country you are free to worship whoever you want; free to assemble in buildings of worship of your choice, and that's fine and dandy. But you are not free to export your intolerance, your thin skin, onto others,most especially if they are not members of your particular club.
//In this country you are free to worship whoever you want; free to assemble in buildings of worship of your choice, and that's fine and dandy. But you are not free to export your intolerance, your thin skin, onto others,most especially if they are not members of your particular club.//
Exactly what I am saying. Amen.
Exactly what I am saying. Amen.
In a nutshell this comes down to the essential right to point out something one finds patently absurd as opposed to an alleged 'god given right or duty' to point (if not shoot) a gun at anyone who dares to point out the folly of reverence for and devotion to someone who or something that has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be inherently evil.
@Khandro "But you are not free to export your intolerance, your thin skin, onto others,most especially if they are not members of your particular club.//
Exactly what I am saying. Amen."
Except that is not what you are saying, at all. You are defending those that lobby for Mr. Nawazs exclusion as Lib Dem PPC because he was a Muslim "not offended" by the Jesus and Mo cartoons. It is these protesters that are showing the thin skin and intolerance, not the cartoonists and satirists. It is these protesters attempting to export their religious intolerance to others not of their club, claiming their right to be offended on behalf of their god ( not much of a god if they could possibly be offended or insulted by some cartoons) trumps the right to free speech and free expression. If they get offended, that's just tough. Suck it up. That's the price you have to pay for living in a multicultural society.
Exactly what I am saying. Amen."
Except that is not what you are saying, at all. You are defending those that lobby for Mr. Nawazs exclusion as Lib Dem PPC because he was a Muslim "not offended" by the Jesus and Mo cartoons. It is these protesters that are showing the thin skin and intolerance, not the cartoonists and satirists. It is these protesters attempting to export their religious intolerance to others not of their club, claiming their right to be offended on behalf of their god ( not much of a god if they could possibly be offended or insulted by some cartoons) trumps the right to free speech and free expression. If they get offended, that's just tough. Suck it up. That's the price you have to pay for living in a multicultural society.
//You are defending those that lobby for Mr. Nawazs exclusion as Lib Dem PPC because he was a Muslim "not offended" by the Jesus and Mo cartoons…… It is these protesters attempting to export their religious intolerance to others not of their club, claiming their right to be offended on behalf of their god….//
…. and moreover protesters who are claiming the right to be offended because Mr Nawaz WASN’T offended.
…. and moreover protesters who are claiming the right to be offended because Mr Nawaz WASN’T offended.
Latest Posts
Diffney Christmas Cracker Quizz
Quizzes & Puzzles76 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles101 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles106 mins ago
Strands #290 “You Say You Want A...
Quizzes & Puzzles194 mins ago
ChatterBank199 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.