Insults to muslims or freedom of speech?

Of course they meant to offend people; you don't draw a cartoon like that if you don't intend to offend people. And why shouldn't they? Doesn't Denmark have freedom of the press? If whoever owns the paper wants to cover it in offensive cartoons, or gay porn, or anything else, that's his business. And if its readers choose to respond by not bying the paper any more, that is their perogative. The day that papers aren't allowed to print something because, "Oh no, it might offend someone!" is the day that "freedom of the press" becomes just another empty phrase.

Should they appologize? Only if they're sorry. Should they respond to their critics with a picture of Mohammed sodomizing a pig? If they want to; nobody has the right never to be offended.

Originally posted by ZephroCarnelian
Exactly.

I'm a Christian and I don't find that offensive, and I don't believe Jesus Himself would either. It's a commonly known ability of His and is being used in a non-offensive comical form. It's not rude, nor insulting.

No-one in their right mind owuld take offence at that.

Likewise with this paper - papers take the mick out of everyone all the time - one shouldn't let what the papers say have any bearing on your feelings...

Otherwise we'd have lots of celebrity suicides....

well u c there is just this slight difference bt islam n other religions :

in islam depiction the Holy Prophet (sallala ho alaihi wasallam) itself is blasphemous , in a good way or a bad 1 (believe me , i m a muslim.i kno)

n freedom of speech doesn't mean that u start insultin Prophets

it is just a slogan that the west is chantin to justify its anti-islam propaganda n nothin else

n if they astually think it isn't that way then let me inform all of u that Iran id holdin a competition abt 12 best cartoona defyin holocaust

the best cartoons will b printed n the cartoonist will b given agold coin or so n the irani gov's request to the so called " freedom of speech" believin papers is to reprint these cartoons just like they reprinted the blasphemous 1s

n freedom of speech doesn't mean that u start insultin Prophets

If freedom of speach doesn't mean you can say offensive things, freedom of speach doesn't mean jack. "Freedom of speach" is just a slogan? It will be nothing more than that, if certain people have their way, but we're not to that pass yet.

I already knew about the Hollocaust thing. Let me explain something to you: "freedom of press" does not mean that the press is forced to publish any slop you thrust upon it. Publish Holocaust cartoons? Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but in the end, why the hell should they? "Freedom of press" does not mean that because some random Iranian ****wit drew a cartoon, the press needs to publish it. Do you really not understand that the press has as much freedom not to publish stuff as they do to publish it?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

Originally posted by Gregory
If you're not a Christian, the obvious solution might be that he did not, in fact, say the "not a jot" stuff. Even if you are a Christian, actually, if you're not an inerintest(sp?). It sounds like something he might make up--he was always Jewifying Christ's stuff-and I don't think it's in any other gospel.

On an unrelated note, Markie, you might do well to stop talking about "Muslims" like they're a unified group instead of a religion with over a billion members and no single leader. Moderate Muslims have spoken out against this, even if it doesn't make good enough television to be widely reported.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
So, you're saying you want them to go "Hey, look! It's a picture of our messiah as a terrorist! Haha! How clever!"

Originally posted by Gregory
I am not a Christian, as it happens.

And markie, you're still making a fool of yourself. "Muslims do this, Muslims do that." If you hate Muslims, just admit it, but stop trying to judge a group of over a billion people based on a few hundred rioters. It is completely, amazingly stupid.

I think you'll find that in general, Muslims can, in fact, take a joke. If you look around, you'll find a Muslim comedian narrating the "World's angriest Iman" contest, and another talk about how thanks to veils and heavy robes, Muslims are the only people who can look at what's basically just a humanoid mass of cloth and go, "Wow, that's hot." Sometimes he gets erects just sitting there, staring at the curtains ... These cartoons go far beyond being a good natured joke, however.

Originally posted by Firewarrior
fair enough if they didnt mean to offend anybody at first , they could have just apologized and nothing more would have come of it , but noooooo they had to go and make more of these so called 'jokes' or cartoons, knowing full well that it would cause major problems and that the back lash would be quite severe...

Originally posted by Gregory
Of course they meant to offend people; you don't draw a cartoon like that if you don't intend to offend people. And why shouldn't they? Doesn't Denmark have freedom of the press? If whoever owns the paper wants to cover it in offensive cartoons, or gay porn, or anything else, that's his business. And if its readers choose to respond by not bying the paper any more, that is their perogative. The day that papers aren't allowed to print something because, "Oh no, it might offend someone!" is the day that "freedom of the press" becomes just another empty phrase.

Should they appologize? Only if they're sorry. Should they respond to their critics with a picture of Mohammed sodomizing a pig? If they want to; nobody has the right never to be offended.

Originally posted by maham
well u c there is just this slight difference bt islam n other religions :

in islam depiction the Holy Prophet (sallala ho alaihi wasallam) itself is blasphemous , in a good way or a bad 1 (believe me , i m a muslim.i kno)

Originally posted by maham
well u c there is just this slight difference bt islam n other religions :

in islam depiction the Holy Prophet (sallala ho alaihi wasallam) itself is blasphemous , in a good way or a bad 1 (believe me , i m a muslim.i kno)

n freedom of speech doesn't mean that u start insultin Prophets

it is just a slogan that the west is chantin to justify its anti-islam propaganda n nothin else

n if they astually think it isn't that way then let me inform all of u that Iran id holdin a competition abt 12 best cartoona defyin holocaust

the best cartoons will b printed n the cartoonist will b given agold coin or so n the irani gov's request to the so called " freedom of speech" believin papers is to reprint these cartoons just like they reprinted the blasphemous 1s

Thousands of Muslims are currently rioting, killing, burning buildings etc. in various countries, because a small Danish newspaper printed some cartoons showing Mohammed in satirical ways. These Muslims say that it is wrong to portray Mohammed, not just in satirical or mocking ways, but in ANY WAY AT ALL. No pictures, drawings, nothing, even if they show Mohammed in a respectful way.

Well, it seems that the people who say this, aren't very educated in Muslim history (no surprise)... or perhaps they are deliberately ignoring it for their own purposes. Mohammed has been portrayed many times since the founding of Islam, and I haven't found any accounts of Muslims rioting, killing, or even writing letters to the editor over any of those depictions.

See http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ for the various paintings etc. of Mohammed made over the centuries.

So it brings up the question: Since there isn't a ban on depicting Mohammed, why do you suppose the Muslims are being encouraged to riot anyway, especially over a plainly insignificant cartoon in an insignificant paper?

I suggest that it might be a continuation of a trend by various Muslim "leaders" to deliberately cause riots and mayhem for the purpose of intimidating various milquetoast governments into granting more and more concessions to Muslims, even outside the laws of those countries.

These Muslims and their leaders are basically saying that they can form edicts for their religion... and then can demand that people OUTSIDE their religion must obey those edicts too. And the entire world must toe the Muslim line, whether they agree or not.

If Adolf Hitler had had that kind of chutzpah, he might have won WWII. At least he waited until he had defeated a country militarily, before he imposed his edicts. This marks one of the rare instances when Hitler, in comparison to other world leaders, can be considered not arrogant enough!
_________________

Originally posted by Gregory
If freedom of speach doesn't mean you can say offensive things, freedom of speach doesn't mean jack. "Freedom of speach" is just a slogan? It will be nothing more than that, if certain people have their way, but we're not to that pass yet.

I already knew about the Hollocaust thing. Let me explain something to you: "freedom of press" does not mean that the press is forced to publish any slop you thrust upon it. Publish Holocaust cartoons? Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but in the end, why the hell should they? "Freedom of press" does not mean that because some random Iranian ****wit drew a cartoon, the press needs to publish it. Do you really not understand that the press has as much freedom not to publish stuff as they do to publish it?

well if some paper printed those blasphemous cartoons n they were considered to b reprintable then y not these. this is also freedom of speech. if they defy thte holocaust then they shud also b given a chance to express themselves.

n the Irani gov is not forcin any1 to reprint those cartoons , but the actual matter is to actually show that u blieve in freedom of speech n giv others the chance to express themselves too , even if it goes against wat u bliev in

Ok, let me clarify: Anyone from any religion, who acts violently in the name of their faith, is misguided according to basic morality. I dispise anyone (Moslem, Christian, Buddhist) who will kill for their faith.

Muslims cant be trusted

Originally posted by K.Diddy
Muslims cant be trusted

Christains can't be trusted.

Ok, lets put the broad brushes down, and think about this.

Humans can't be trusted. Any religion for that matter. So choose your lie and live and die by it.

Everyone is always right anyway.

I will stand by what I have said

Ahhhh....nah, you can't trust anybody.....except me... 😎

Originally posted by maham
well if some paper printed those blasphemous cartoons n they were considered to b reprintable then y not these. this is also freedom of speech. if they defy thte holocaust then they shud also b given a chance to express themselves.

n the Irani gov is not forcin any1 to reprint those cartoons , but the actual matter is to actually show that u blieve in freedom of speech n giv others the chance to express themselves too , even if it goes against wat u bliev in

I wish you'd spell-check your posts.

Historically, magazines have never been required or expected to publish stuff they don't believe in in the name of "freedom of speach." You will not open the Nation (American liberal magazine) and find conservative propoganda in it, for example.

There are places you're not allowed to publish Hollocaust-denying material. Germany, for example. Maybe Denmark has similar laws, in which case you have a point--they should be allowed to express themselves. But that's not the same as insisting that a certain newspaper publish their offensive material.

Originally posted by maham
well if some paper printed those blasphemous cartoons n they were considered to b reprintable then y not these. this is also freedom of speech. if they defy thte holocaust then they shud also b given a chance to express themselves.

n the Irani gov is not forcin any1 to reprint those cartoons , but the actual matter is to actually show that u blieve in freedom of speech n giv others the chance to express themselves too , even if it goes against wat u bliev in