News   Mar 28, 2024
 1.2K     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 622     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 904     0 

Embassies in Syria torched

censorship is all around us. do billboards, newspapers, etc. display pornography? what's this beep i hear everytime someone swears? is that my freedom of speech?

Want porn dan_e, check out the internet. No need for drive-by titillation.

The beep you hear? As in someone censoring something? I would agree, who has the right to do so? Are complaining or agreeing?

everyone is all "hey, we can show those cartoons - freedom of speech" but when something offends them - "no, you can't show that. it's wrong"

And one should then express themselves and explain why it is wrong. To say "it is wrong" is empty. It is essential that people learn to express themselves reasonably. Beyond that, there will always be individuals who will say whatever they wish, no matter how offensive. That will always be a fact, so it is time that people start to deal with it. You can't control another person's mind or emotions, but you most certainly can control your own. No one ever guaranteed a perfect world to you, did they? So sometimes you will just have to put up with what you don't like to hear when you don't want to hear it. That does not mean you have to shut up.

i will be the first one to step in and say - "hey, what ever happened to free speech? if it was good enough for cartoons that offended other people, isn't it good enough for what ever offends you?"

Good for you. Too bad you have to couch the entire notion of free expression in the most negative form. If you should ever bother to take the time to understand the painfull and slow evolution of the concept of human freedoms, you would see that most elucidated freedoms are defined in terms of "freedom from." That is, you as an individual are to be protected from the unnecessary execution of force from the state whenever possible. Freedom of expression is one of the few freedoms we have defined that is not just a "freedom from," so individuals must then also bear responsibility for their actions as such. There was a time where speaking against the state, the government or the regent would bring death. That was the ultimate penalty for free expression. To live in a democracy and a free society, and to exercise free will as a human person, one must have the right to express ideas, even unpopular ideas, if the conversation of humanity is to continue. But it appears that all you see in this action is fear of offense and weakness. That is too bad.
 
all you see in this action is fear of offense and weakness

no, you still don't get what i'm saying. if we can be sensitive to many, for good diplomacy, would it be soo hard to be sensitive to one more need?

i'm not saying that any religion should have total authority over our way of life, all i'm saying is hey, lets be respectful equally or lets not be respectfull at all because when censorship does a favor for some groups but not another, somebody is gonna feel like they don't belong.


riots: totally wrong. it wouldn't be caving in to the demands of the rioters by not running the cartoon. as brianhawkins pointed out in the article, maybe the riots don't have that much to do with the cartoon.

and you know what, after everything is said and done, maybe we don't need to censor this cartoon afterall. the respected media seems to have self control over issues that offend people. i guess you can say that it's the people that are doing the moderation.

maybe levant should be allowed to publish the cartoon if he wants. just how freedom came to us at a cost, it's comming to him at a cost since many retailers are choosing not to carry his publication anymore. i hope it was worth it for him.

maybe it doesn't matter that the censorship rules are unfair
and un balanced, things seemed to have balanced out anyway.
 
no, you still don't get what i'm saying. if we can be sensitive to many, for good diplomacy, would it be soo hard to be sensitive to one more need?

Remember the old saying: the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

All we end up doing is being "sensitive" to one more demand in the face of incredible contradictions. We are willing to pervert free expression to guarantee others the right to no free expression.
 
it's always an extreme right vs another extreme right and everyone else ends up getting caught in the crossfire. it's less about free speech and more about pissing off other people on purpose to start a fight. remember those kids in school that would go around pushing the new kids to try to get them to fight? nothing ever changes.
 
It is about freedom of expression, AND how people use it and react to it.

The political party in question is not all that interested in free speech; what it is aiming to do is to ellicit a response that would support its own political ideology concerning immigration. Anyone who reacts violently will simply play right into its hands. Just because someone chooses to say something silly does not require that a silly or violent response be made. Choices do otherwise can be pursued.
 
What most people outside the Islamic faith fail to understand is how sacred the Prophet Muhammad is to Muslims. Muhammad is more dear to Muslims than one's father; more dear than even one's mother. Does freedom of speech trump your the honor of your mother? For most Muslims it does not. Ask yourself if you will tolerate anyone making fun of your mother. If you don't mind your mother being mocked, then ask yourself if there is anything you hold sacred. In an increasingly secular Demark (as well as Western Europe, Canada), there is little that is still considered sacred.

An unflattering caricature of Jesus published in a Danish newspaper would probably not get much negative feedback by Danes of Christian heritage today. But if Christians won't protest it, who will? Muslims worldwide would protest such a defamation, because Muslims consider Jesus a prophet of God in the same league as Muhammad and Moses. It will be a strange day when Muslims are regarded as the defenders of the honor of Jesus and Christians are not. In an increasingly agnostic Europe, that day could be coming sooner than we think.
 
one thing i don't understand is that we don't have a picture of what mohammed looked like. how then can an image that claims to be him be offensive? if all future images of the prophet contain a black square where his face should be, doesn't that become a representation of him and therefore also becomes offensive? i also understand that the prohibition against pictures is a modern thing. did mohammed say "don't use my pictures" any time in history?


-----------------------------------------------------
Visions of Mohammed
Feb. 26, 2006. 01:13 AM
LYNDA HURST
TORONTO STAR

060227_mohammed_300.jpg


The exquisite painting shown in part on this page is a 15th-century "illumination." It shows the Prophet Mohammed in the course of his visionary night journey from Mecca to Jerusalem, then guided by the angel Gabriel through the seven spheres of heaven to the throne of God, or Allah.

The journey is known as the ascension, or mirâj.

It is one of 61 paintings, each featuring a depiction of Mohammed, created by unknown Islamic artists in the workshops of Herat, in what is now western Afghanistan, in the early 1400s.

They were made for Shah Rokh, a son of the Mongol conqueror Tamerlane, whose brilliant court attracted the greatest thinkers and poets, artists and bookbinders of the region and of the day.

In 1673 in Constantinople, now Istanbul, the French ambassador purchased the images and took them home to Paris. But not until the early 1800s was the manuscript of the mirâj story, calligraphed in the Central Asian Uighur script, finally translated.

The priceless originals are now safely stored in the Bibliothèque Nationale in France. But the vibrantly coloured, gold-leafed masterworks, from which this image is taken, were published, without complaint then or since, by New York fine-arts publisher George Braziller in a 1977 book, The Miraculous Journey of Mahomet.

The paintings, like multiple others produced during the Middle Ages, are as little known today to many Muslims as they were at the time of their creation. Albeit for different reasons.

When first executed, these works were bound for the well-educated court elite, not ordinary people, says Linda Northrup, professor of early and medieval Islamic history at the University of Toronto. "They would not have been aware of them," she says. "These depictions were intended for a select audience."

By the 9th century, 200 years after Mohammed's death, there was a dichotomy between cosmopolitan Muslim culture and "street" Islam, says Northrup.

"There has always been a dichotomy, differences of opinion. It is tragic, because learning and the search for knowledge has always been at the forefront of Islam."

Between then and now, but particularly in the past two centuries, a prohibition against depicting the Prophet in painting or sculpture without, at the very least, veiling his face, spread through the Muslim world.

Though depictions are not expressly forbidden by the Koran, Mohammed himself is recorded as saying, "And who is more unjust than those who try to create the likeness of my creation?"

Over time, a dogma emerged that, as he was but a man, a messenger pointing toward God, his portrayal (or indeed that of any living thing) would distract the faithful away from the worship of God — and "there is no God but Allah."

But are these iconographic images also a form of art in and of themselves? One which should be accessible to all?

To Western eyes, they are creations of the highest artistic order, not merely "relics of history," as some Muslim critics have dismissed them.

By any standard, this painted depiction of Mohammed is hugely different in context from the controversial Danish cartoons. Yet could it still be deemed offensive — when no offence is intended?

`It is good for non-Muslims to see such art, and good for Muslims in Canada to get their education from other than fundamentalists'

Mohamad Tavakoli-Targhi

University of Toronto

Some would say yes, others a vehement no, among them Mohamad Tavakoli-Targhi, an Iranian-born U of T professor of Islam and modern Middle East history.

"It is good for non-Muslims to see such art, and good for Muslims in Canada to get their education from other than fundamentalists," he says.

A former librarian, he mourns the fact that so many Muslims are unaware of the "fantastic archive of images" that trace their Islamic heritage, specifically citing the "ascension genre" of paintings.

Many are in museums and libraries in the West, but they're also plentiful in the Muslim world, with the largest collection held by Istanbul's Topkapi Museum, in Turkey, an Islamic country with a secular government.

"Many Muslims don't know that while some paintings show the Prophet covered, plenty show him uncovered," says Tavakoli-Targhi. "People have different understandings of art history and different kinds of access to it."

As anyone who has travelled to the Mideast knows, the taboo against Mohammed's portrayal is far from universal.

The prohibition is stricter among Sunni Muslims than Shiites, and is therefore adhered to in varying degrees in various regions.

In Shia Iran, it is common for posters of Mohammed, with his face clear and uncovered, to hang on the walls of houses, Tavakoli-Targhi says.

Iranian Shiites often wear a pendant bearing a picture of Mohammed as a quiet symbol of their devotion to Allah, rather than the Supreme Leader, currently Ayatollah Khamenei. Depictions appear on street vendors' tables, on cigarette kiosks, on the outside of buildings.

In the Iranian village of Yazlan, says Tavakoli-Targhi, one building is entirely covered with a fresco of Mohammed on his buraq, a fantastical horse-like creature with the head of a human female, shown in the image on this page.

Earlier this month, at the start of the cartoon controversy, U.S. Muslim leaders requested that the marble sculpture of the Prophet holding the Koran be removed from a frieze on the east front of Washington's Supreme Court building.

Along with 17 other great lawgivers over the ages, including Moses, Confucius and Charlemagne, the Prophet has stood there since the building's construction in 1935. Above is the motto, "Justice the Guardian of Liberty."

The court denied the request. The good of retaining Mohammed within the pantheon outweighs the bad, it said. Though the Muslim leaders disagreed, a spokesman said, "they appreciated the thought and the intention behind the sculpture." Whenever dispute arises over a depiction of the Prophet, "intent is a big factor."

Perhaps Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan, of London's Lokahi Foundation, which studies religious diversity, should have the last word.

"We are at a crossroads," he recently wrote in The Guardian.

"The time has come for (people) to reject this dangerous division of people into two worlds, to start building bridges based on common values. They must assert the inalienable right to freedom of expression and, at the same time, demand measured exercise of it."

Hence our offering of the painting, but with the face of Mohammed blocked out.

A measured exercise. A bridge, of sorts.
 
An unflattering caricature of Jesus published in a Danish newspaper would probably not get much negative feedback by Danes of Christian heritage today. But if Christians won't protest it, who will? Muslims worldwide would protest such a defamation, because Muslims consider Jesus a prophet of God in the same league as Muhammad and Moses. It will be a strange day when Muslims are regarded as the defenders of the honor of Jesus and Christians are not. In an increasingly agnostic Europe, that day could be coming sooner than we think

An unflattering picture of Jesus, or Mohammed, or Buddha and so on, is a picture, and that is it. The "defaming" exists in the mind of the person who chooses to experience the this sense of "defamation." Do we believe everything we see in pictures?

When you say "honour, " what do you mean? This is important as there is no set standardized code of honour, and as such, people can defend actions on the basis of a personal definition of this quality. That could mean extreme over-reactions to trivial situations. I this how we ought to be conducting ourselves?
 
I would imagine that some find that a person not believing in Mohammed as an important prophet is a great insult. I'm not entirely sure how drawing a picture of Mohammed could be a greater insult than not believing he exists. I am fairly certain that being an aethiest stating he doesn't believe in god is an insult leading to an afterlife in hell according to some religious folks. Many find teaching science and evolution as disrespectful of their religion. I don't know that people can avoid stepping on some more sensitive people's toes when communicating what they believe when it conflicts with other beliefs. Ultimately people need to be open to the fact different points of view exist and should only find that which is meant to be insulting as a true insult.
 
enviro, you're going straight to hell
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
's kitchen NYC someday, no stoping in rochester - probably. make sure you take some photos. they got some nice buildings. :p
 
An unflattering picture of Jesus, or Mohammed, or Buddha and so on, is a picture, and that is it.

This view illustrates my point perfectly. To some, like the writer quoted above, it is just a picture and nothing more. For others, the image is so sacred that you dare not let anyone mess with it.

However, here comes a time when pictures stop being just pictures, and words stop being just words. Images of child pornography are not just pictures. They are exploitation of the worst kind. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is not just a word being uttered. It is reckless endangerment. There are limits for words and pictures. Free Speech has never been absolute. Governments acknowledge this and place various limits on free speech for public policy considerations.
 
Well, at the risk of confusing issues and getting way off topic, and since you have raised the issue of child pornography, the fact of the matter is that the laws against the possession of child porn could actually be challenged in court. Anyone who would challenge these laws would have to have pretty thick skins because they would face enormous abuse for obvious reasons. It is the exploitation of children in the making of that material which is illegal.

I would imagine that some find that a person not believing in Mohammed as an important prophet is a great insult. I'm not entirely sure how drawing a picture of Mohammed could be a greater insult than not believing he exists. I am fairly certain that being an aethiest stating he doesn't believe in god is an insult leading to an afterlife in hell according to some religious folks. Many find teaching science and evolution as disrespectful of their religion.

All excellent points! Disbelief (or non-belief) could be construed as far more insulting than a picture. It is a very slippery slope when religious leaders and their followers demand special protection for their beliefs from questioning. The result could be the strangulation of other forms of inquiry that lie outside of religious beliefs. Does anyone have such a right?
 

Back
Top