It's completely out of order, religions should be respected. Freedom of speech is one thing, insulting 1 Billion peoples religion is another.Originally Posted by ccfcman
So we have Muslims burning down Danish and Norwegian consulates annoyed at being portrayed as violent!
It's completely out of order, religions should be respected. Freedom of speech is one thing, insulting 1 Billion peoples religion is another.Originally Posted by ccfcman
Extratime.ie
Yo te quiero, mi querida. Sin tus besos, yo soy nada.
Abri o portão de ouro, da maquina do tempo.
Mi mamá me hizo guapo, listo y antimadridista.
He was right on that one. Not saying that football was the cause, but our music and culture has been almost overwhelmed by foreign rubbish.Originally Posted by sirhamish
Yeah but we don't burn down embassies over it!Originally Posted by Poor Student
Hamish it's worth pointing out that a lot of what you say about your 'represed' past appears to be related to Irish nationalism as much as Catholicism?
Long live the Pope! Free Burma (NLD/SNLD), Free Tibet (Burma Campaign/Free Tibet Campaign Alliance), Free the Rossport 5! (ACCOMPLISHED 30/09/05)
BOYCOTT TOTAL OIL-Please Read!
Not the way he meant it. Don't forget that Irish music was enriched by "foreign" instruments like guitars, bouzoukis and God knows what else back in the 60s - Planxty, Sweeneys Men etc. I remember Saturday Ceilidh Show on the radio before telly and all songs commenced with a piano plonk, plonk followed by badly played diddly eyed stuff that made one want to die.Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I have an idea where you're coming from - give examples please - but that priest wanted a Berlin wall around our then stagnating culture and no soccer, no "foreign music", so socialism, and absolutely no sex.
You really had to be around then PS to see where I'm coming from. Sorry about using that argument but you really had to be in that era. I'm kinda surprised most people under 25 in the 60s and 70s didn't go Communist as a reaction to those repressive times. Except for a few isolated students in Dublin, Belfast etc, official Ireland looked on horrified at the Paris students of 1968, freedom movements and so on back then.
Last edited by hamish; 05/02/2006 at 4:37 PM.
Originally Posted by liam88
Good point Liam88 - they were both intermixed alright. One fed the other STS but TBH I didn't feel THAT repressed just irritated and eventually like most of my contemporaries we did what we wanted to.
I had/have nothing against Cathoicism - save where wrong is done within it and by it - there was fcuk all difference between RC or Protestant conservatism anyway - all part of what we called the "establishment".
Yeah good point, maybe they should have made it clear that they were mocking extremism on the fringes of Islam. I've see many cartoons on the African famines In magazines like The New Internationalist satirisng the governments/industrialists etc who often add to the suffering in famine areas.Originally Posted by Hither green
Maybe those cartoonists should have done a better job because extremism in ANY area shuld be taken on - in fact, with a little work that cartoon on "running out of virgins" could be a really good one simply because most moderate Muslims have rediculed those Muslim extremists who state that 70 virgins will be awaiting if one blows up innocent people.
There's a difference between satire and insult.
What little satire those cartoons contained could have been achieved without printing an image of the Prophet.
But they said that the image wasn't the prophet but images of extremist Muslims - TBF Student Mullet, as I said above I don't know if I buy that explanation - sounds like an " after the event excuse " to me. Anyway, could somebody tell me what's the difference between satire and insult. I must admit I'm setting a trap here.
Harpo - that's for the diplomat compliment - nah - if I got within a yard of Bush the Loser's ambassador here I'd attack him.
I stick by what I say though - criticism of Israeli government policy is not anti-Semitism if it's concerned with the morality of those policies. Too many pro-Israel immediately use that cover all "anti-Semitism" label to stifle any legitimate criticism of that country. I even heard the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain called anti Semitic believe it or not. Israel, Iraq, Palestine and many other countries are suffering the effects of the colonialist policies of the Britain in the past too.
Let me clarify I have no objections to Muslims demonstrating against these cartoons - none whatsoever - but I think some of the many placards threatening death to the West and burning embassies is totally insane and likely to generate a reply from people to say, "I told you so"..
It reminds me of a a very old Millwall fan grabbing a BBC camera at the old Den back in the 80s, making bit of it by smashing it on the ground and shouting at the cameraman - "If you fcukers didn't come here to film these troublemakers, there'd be no trouble so fcuk off" LOL In every sense an old goal - ditto the over the top response.
BTW, these cartoons have been around since September. Why did some members and Imams of the Muslim community and in Mosques copy them and circulate them amongst the Muslim Community only lately?? Surely they too should have copped on that only trouble would have resulted from this.
They could easily have called for an boycott of said newspapers - not buying them, not advertising in them and encouraging all Muslims to not even sell them in shops. I don't buy many Irish papers because of much ignorant comment of local football as do many Footypersons here.
Why didn't the Muslims hit those media ( all over Europe) in the pocket where it really hurts??? The burnings and bombings were too a retaliation and also disgraceful - let's be blunt here.
Condex, - how do you send a Muslim back to where they come from if they're third generation in the West?? I do have a problem with a young man or woman coming here now and refusing to abide by the laws of the country they end up in or not recognising that country. "Muslim first" and "British second" (as I've heard) is out of order as is "Catholic first" and "Irish second".
Finally, many here regard the cartoons as an insult? Some think the cartoons are satire. Nobody has drawn a line yet. Why? Because it's impossible. I just think most of the cartoons were poor quality and badly thought out - not surprising they got on the cackles of so many Muslims and others.
I'm gonna just read this thread from now on 'cos I really cannot go any further from my end. I just get more confused on some angles of this debate.
Does this mean BTW that all criticism of anything related to Islam is now ended. Can any cartoonist do anything without someone threatening him/her and citing unfairness?? Does anyone think any media will go down this road and we'll just have self-censorship? That's not good either.
The line was crossed when they printed an image of the Prophet. It contributed nothing to the satire, it simply caused offence. Similar criticisms have been leveled at moslem society and beliefs in the past (eg here http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38673) without outrage.Originally Posted by sirhamish
I think that there is a strong parallel between this and Kevin Myres' "b a s t a r d s" column a few months ago. Kevin raised valid issues but crossed the line whan he used language which caused offence but didn't contribute to the point he was trying to raise. The cartoonists did the same, only with an offensive image in the place of offensive language.
I don't mind people being offenseve if it is necessary to raise an issue but these cartoons were offensive for the sake of being offensive.
Last edited by Student Mullet; 05/02/2006 at 8:45 PM.
Is it true that JFK had to qualify at some point in his election campaign something to the effect that he would show loyalty to the US Constitution first before he obeyed the pope in Rome? It's a bit tangental but this just sparked that off in my mind.Originally Posted by sirhamish
I suppose the whole issue raises an old question. As a firm believer in God and indeed Islam, do you acquiesce about this and sit back content the infidels are going to hell or do you suck it to the infidel for their blasphemy as a servant of God? I'm nowhere close to being familiar with the theological arguments supporting either action but I have often heard Islam argued for as a religion of peace. I must say a lot of people (couldn't tell you what kind of percentage of Islam they represent but a significant minority at least) are sticking it to who they believe are the blasphemers. I can't help but feel our two worlds are as deeply in conflict ideologically and almost in actuality as we were a millenium ago.
Couldn’t agree with you more there. And whilst comparisons of the state of Israel with Nazi Germany is obviously provocative it has certain grounds for validity in view of their racial elitism, ethnic legislative bias and the flexible way in which they interpret democracy.Originally Posted by sirhamish
I thought the current furore was because they were republished?Originally Posted by sirhamish
But the line was already clearly drawn, the issue of depicting Mohammed has long been clear, the Continental press were already well aware of the line before they stepped over it and, as I understand it, commissioned these drawings with intention of seeing how far they could step over that line.Originally Posted by sirhamish
But once upon a time we would have. Once upon a time we’d have called a Crusade to right the wrong. Not that I’m saying that’s right but whilst we’d considered ourselves more civilised to medieval Catholics, we’re also most certainly less religious and more secular. Are we in a position to condemn others because they’re as fervent as we once were? Have we progressed or regressed? We'd say we've progressed but Muslims and the Church would say the opposite.Originally Posted by liam88
"...and it's Charlie Chaplin on the wing..."
That's a point I was trying to raise. Assume Islam is correct, the Koran is the word of God etc. Why bother with secularism? One could argue the same for Catholicism or other Christian denominations. Without sounding obvious, a secular world is a secular ideal. If one were to believe fully in their religion then there is no particular point in secularism unless of course you can find a doctrinal reason for respecting other relgions and beliefs (or non-beliefs).Originally Posted by Hither green
Thanks for that SM - that helps me and I agree that the Danish cartoonist was trying to see how much he'd get away with as BBC reporter opined. I hate saying this again but when I was about your age (circa 30 years ago) there was a tendency to hammer everything a feck the consequences - whethere it was Python or The Goon Show - nothing seemed to be off limits really.Originally Posted by Student Mullet
Were they slagging Mohammed though? - the one drawing I could find of the Prophet (see above) didn't look much like the cartoons - they reminded me more of the Ataytullohs in Iran.
I'm just confusing myself more and more now.
Yeah CTID, how many religions say they are the one true one?? The only two I can think of are Islam and Christianity. I think that Buddhism definitely doesn't have that tenet. But isn't the blasphemy argument irrelevant since the cartoonist are non Muslim?? Don't you have to be a member of the club, so to speak??Originally Posted by Poor Student
I think I stated that I wouldn't post about this again but you guys are too interesting.
It's me, Poor Student! Juadaism is another one which can contend it is the true one. Hinduism too I guess. I know it's a poor analogy but as an Athlone fan you're not an immediate offence to me but if you start saying UCD have no right to be in the league then you're starting to tick me off. I gather from an Islamic perspective, as non-believer in Mohammed you're just ignorant but start dissing him and you're actively offending me and being blashemous. As far as I would be concerned we're all creations of Allah and all capable of blasphemy. That make any sense?Originally Posted by sirhamish
I m not going to get into what seems to be a 3 page cyclical argument about whether it is offending if you look at it from any perspective you like. Such minute detail is irrelevant to the issue, in my opinion - I'm sure many will class that as wrong/generalising/stupid etc.
What I base it on is being nonreligious myself as to whether the subsequent actions and noise coming from the offended group meets the original event. It does not, in my opinion. I gladly support any publication who have printed the said material. I can understand some people's offence to it. However this does not allow you to do what some people have done and say what some people have said. I take offence to the reaction of some people.
I am not going to go marching about it or waving banners in the air or burning buildings I associate with the people I have ben offended by though. The subsequent reactions whether offended are not are pathetic. Whether you are offended or not, you have no right to react like some people have done - in my opinion.
Last edited by dfx-; 05/02/2006 at 10:52 PM.
The Model Club
Tell all the Bohs you know
that we've gone and won two-in-a-row
and it's not gonna be three
and it's not gonna be four
it's more likely to be 5-1.
Does indeed amigo - very articulate. An Athlone fan dissing UCD never!!Originally Posted by Poor Student
My attitude to other EL clubs TBH is one where I get real pleasure in learning good news on ground developments etc etc. Progress for other clubs is good for Athlone and vice versa so I find it impossible to knock other clubs unless someone acts the b.ollocks, bends rules etc etc - something Athlone Town would NEVER do. LOL
I posted my points before you came on board PS - I would never dream of ignoring you BTW. You write good stuff man.
Hither Green and Student Mullet - thank you also amigos also for the updates and clarifications.
Thanks.Originally Posted by sirhamish
I suppose just as some people of different religions are happy to see others live in peace and some just want to stir the pot for whatever reason.Originally Posted by sirhamish
Thanks again. It's just you quoted me and called me CTID. You probably saw the UCD crest and put 2 and 2 together and got 5.:POriginally Posted by sirhamish
dfx, while you're entitled to think so, essentially I think that's the attitude from the Islamic side which is helping largely to fan the flames. I don't think such an attitude is conducive to calming the situation down. That's the problem really, two diametrically opposed weltenschauungs. It's hard to meet in between.
By the way does anyone find it suspicious that such a tough and undemocratic regime as they have in Syria couldn't prevent the destruction of the embassies in Damascus? Also sad to see an embassy burned down in Beirut a city once though of as a bridge between the Christian and Islamic worlds.
Bookmarks