Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Europe's Defamation of the Prophet
Jome:
How about that France link ?
Would be more interesting to see what Le Monde printed, and got convicted for, than arguing over some petty unimportant cartoons.
And another thing:
--- Quote from: JML - no vowels, disembowel your Colin Powell, throw in the towel on February 09, 2006, 09:37:11 PM ---A comic caricature can't be used to spread racism and hate? It doesn't have to be with the intent to create chaos/conflicts... but it can definitely spread racism/hate. The ones you posted about Jews coming from the Middle East attest to this. In the same way, Europe has used such caricatures to spread exactly that... racism/hate... for centuries... especially anti-Semitic ones... and anti-Islamic ones during the Middle Ages... used as propaganda for support of the crusades.
--- End quote ---
The last crusade ended in 1291. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
The printing press was invented in the 1450's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press
How could Europe print caricatures/cartoon propaganda to drum up support for the crusades if the printing press hadn't been invented yet?
J @ M @ L:
Here is a link to the article:
http://www.honestreporting.com/a/lemonde.article.htm
It is kind of sad to see you lacking common sense and being this ignorant... but here is one example:
Year: 1162
And I'm sure you're familiar with Dante's work? (or maybe not)
Anything else?
nibs:
--- Quote from: JML - no vowels, disembowel your Colin Powell, throw in the towel --- France also has anti-defamation laws in place.
--- End quote ---
france, denmark, norway, germany, greece, britain all have these laws on the books. germany is possibly the most extreme; apparently it's illegal to simply deny the halocaust in germany.
a civil suit has been brought against the newspaper in denmark and it was dismissed. i believe a similar case was also dismissed in france over the reprinting. "freedom of speech" was cited.
this looks like another double standard. to dismiss the case is to suggest that freedom of speech supercedes these laws against derogatory, defamatory statements made against religions. which renders these anti-defamatory and anti-blasphemy laws effectively useless. most people understand that freedom of speech has limits. you can't yell fire in a movie theater and cause a false panic.
in the u.s. you probably won't see cartoons in national newspapers lampooning blacks, the types of cartoons that once were deemed acceptable. loony toons (warner bros) has taken certain cartoons that were racially insensitive out of circulation. agatha christie's novel "and then there were none" had it's title changed as the original title was "ten little niggers" and later "ten little indians". it's really not censorship when it's a question of images or languages that can be considered either obscene or defamatory. most people accept that there must be limits somewhere.
nibs:
--- Quote from: Shallow on February 08, 2006, 03:22:40 PM ---This one Muhammad cartoon is no worse than the countless number of Jesus satires that pop up every few weeks.
--- End quote ---
well, technically i believe a jesus satire is just as bad because none of the prophets should have their image or likeness reproduced. i believe the reason for this practice is specifically to prevent people from worshipping any of the prophets, as some have done with jesus.
--- Quote ---P.S. Before you tell me it's different because in Islam you aren't allowed to show Muhammad in pictures, could someone please show me where in the Quran it says you can't, and why the Muslim cultures in Iran and Turkey have had pictures of Muhammad for hundreds of years?
--- End quote ---
i believe it's only acceptable among the shia to do so. ofcourse, the image was disrespectful so the shia were also pissed. you're treading on a slippery slope when you start trying to argue dogma; but your argument basically amounts to "in this sense the shia get islam right, and the sunnis have islam wrong". is that the argument you wish to make?
especially if you wish to turn around and use that logic to disparage established customs and beliefs that may be outside the qu'ran. all religions tend to establish traditions that are outside the various holy texts.
for example, if you ask the seventh day adventists, they will tell you that all other christian denominations are going to hell because they do not keep the sabbath. i've actually sat through sda sermons where there was a chart of other religions and other denominations of christianity and the explanations of what all of them were doing wrong that was going to land them in hell.
Jome:
--- Quote from: JML - no vowels, disembowel your Colin Powell, throw in the towel on February 09, 2006, 11:29:14 PM ---
It is kind of sad to see you lacking common sense and being this ignorant... but here is one example:
Year: 1162
--- End quote ---
OWN GOAL, the text in French below the picture sonned your whole argument.
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/euro_medi_ren/
Illustration depicting a schematized Mohammed from an early medieval Latin translation of the Koran, from a manuscript in la Bibliotheque de l'Arsenal, in Paris. This may be the earliest known depiction of Mohammed, possibly dating from the mid-12th century. This reproduction is from the book Naissance de l'Europe, by Robert S. Lopez (published 1962) (taken from Deux traductions latines du Coran, by Marie-Therese D'Alverny [published 1948]).
If you can't prove it, make it up.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version