Muslims need to chill the f*** out

[Barrel of Fun]

but deafness is an affliction. religion is something these people have chosen to pursue though, granted, doctrination would be more accurate. either way, they have the choice of opting out of it. deaf people cannot choose to hear. and it is because it is a choice that we must be able to rip the piss out of them for choosing it (christians included) and they must have to accept it. if they cannot, their choice must be of questionable value.

Whether it is a choice or not, do people deserve to be ridiculed for what they are?

 

[Tesco in Disguise]

no, never what they are. but always what they choose. it is only when you question something (part of which is ridicule) that you can ever evaluate it.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I met a witch at the weekend. A flatmate of a friend. I think what she believes in is ridiculous and a pile of codswallop, but I didn't feel the urge to ridicule her. Perhaps it is the thrill of a reaction. I suppose that is part of the fun of a message board. Say something controversial and get a response.

We have lauded Big Mac for sticking up for himself and Harty backing down for not following through with his statement of "he is not good enough for this level".

I think the key issue here is why did they print these things. Would the editor have the guts to ridicule Mohammed in the face of a believer. Antagonistic journalism. We can do without that.

 

[CHAPPERS]

no, never what they are. but always what they choose. it is only when you question something (part of which is ridicule) that you can ever evaluate it.

But most Muslims don't 'choose' to be so, they just are.

 

[London Calling]

I am interested in, if went back in time,

how many of our racist and Nazi fellow travellers would

1. Join Franco and his Falangists in their overthrow of a democracy in Spain

2. Join their starch pants comrades in the overthrow of their beloved Blighty

LC

 

[DJ Leon]

I met a witch at the weekend. A flatmate of a friend. I think what she believes in is ridiculous and a pile of codswallop, but I didn't feel the urge to ridicule her. Perhaps it is the thrill of a reaction. I suppose that is part of the fun of a message board. Say something controversial and get a response.

We have lauded Big Mac for sticking up for himself and Harty backing down for not following through with his statement of "he is not good enough for this level".

I think the key issue here is why did they print these things. Would the editor have the guts to ridicule Mohammed in the face of a believer. Antagonistic journalism. We can do without that.

The key issue is in fact: should this newspaper have the right to print this cartoon if they so wish. The answer, I think, is YES.

I disagree with plenty of things printed in newspapers or published on websites, but I would defend their right to publish them. It's a freedom of speech and we should defend it as strongly in this case as we should've have done against calls to close Jerry Springer: The Opera or Behzti - the Birmingham play called off after Sikh rioting.

 

[Tesco in Disguise]

But most Muslims don't 'choose' to be so, they just are.

rubbish. you are born white, you are born british, you are born with blond hair.
you are not born thinking muhammad is a prophet. you are indoctrinated by those close to you. it may be difficult, but all muslims have the chance to renounce their faith.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

The key issue is in fact: should this newspaper have the right to print this cartoon if they so wish. The answer, I think, is YES.

I disagree with plenty of things printed in newspapers or published on websites, but I would defend their right to publish them. It's a freedom of speech and we should defend it as strongly in this case as we should've have done against calls to close Jerry Springer: The Opera or Behzti - the Birmingham play called off after Sikh rioting.

That is true. But surely some common sense should prevail and if an article is going to stir up racial tension, then it would be advisable to not do so.

Something like Jerry Springer was not intended to offend anyone. Can we honestly say the same about printing pictures of Mohammed? What is the relevance if this was not the case!!?

 

[London Calling]

The key issue is in fact: should this newspaper have the right to print this cartoon if they so wish. The answer, I think, is YES.

I disagree with plenty of things printed in newspapers or published on websites, but I would defend their right to publish them. It's a freedom of speech and we should defend it as strongly in this case as we should've have done against calls to close Jerry Springer: The Opera or Behzti - the Birmingham play called off after Sikh rioting.

I assume a line of decency, morality comes in somewhere?

Or do we have split muffs on page 3, detailed footage of the latest mugging on page 13, Palace fans without masks?

 

[DJ Leon]

That is true. But surely some common sense should prevail and if an article is going to stir up racial tension, then it would be advisable to not do so.

Something like Jerry Springer was not intended to offend anyone. Can we honestly say the same about printing pictures of Mohammed? What is the relevance if this was not the case!!?

I think that this cartoon probably shows the same level of sensitivity and insight as the average Daily Mail piece on asylum seekers. Lots of people may disagree with it, but the Mail publishes it daily anyway. I'm glad that it's allowed to.

The hamfisted point of the cartoon was to associate the Islamic faith with the crimes committed in it's name. Yes that will offend a lot of people, but then what doesn't offend someone, somewhere?

By the way, I think you'll find plenty of Christians do think that Springer: The Opera was designed to offend and nothing else.

 

[NMH]

With a group that feels attacked and repressed, ridiculed and vilified by the West - there should be no surprise that they feel sensitive and angry. The pathetic cartoonist that, once again, generalises and cloisters even the most devout and gentle Muslims deserves to be thrown in jail - and the newspapers that print that sort of religio-racism are scum.

You really cannot keep baiting a whole religious group and calling THEM the bad guys and expect them to sit there and take it. Muslims are not terrorists, and the real terrorists can just use this sort of shit as an excuse to say that the West is evil, and to make more strikes against us, and cartoons like that will gain them support!

Remember Hitler's supporters painting the Jews as the bad guys, always fat with huge noses and obsessed about money?
That was wrong then, and this is wrong now. Do we want to do the same as the nazis to a religious group??

Think about it.

 

[Brixtaan]

It says it all that those youths burning the flags (always a good tv shot) had nothing better to do than get wound up by a cartoon printed in a newspaper in a small country 2000 miles away of a make-belive man with a bomb on his head.They need help.

 

[DJ Leon]

I assume a line of decency, morality comes in somewhere?

Or do we have split muffs on page 3, detailed footage of the latest mugging on page 13, Palace fans without masks?

Of course, but there's a line to draw. If lots of people are going to be offended by something, do you ban it?

Think what our daily lives would be like if that was the case.

 

[DJ Leon]

With a group that feels attacked and repressed, ridiculed and vilified by the West - there should be no surprise that they feel sensitive and angry. The pathetic cartoonist that, once again, generalises and cloisters even the most devout and gentle Muslims deserves to be thrown in jail - and the newspapers that print that sort of religio-racism are scum.

You really cannot keep baiting a whole religious group and calling THEM the bad guys and expect them to sit there and take it. Muslims are not terrorists, and the real terrorists can just use this sort of shit as an excuse to say that the West is evil, and to make more strikes against us, and cartoons like that will gain them support!

Remember Hitler's supporters painting the Jews as the bad guys, always fat with huge noses and obsessed about money?
That was wrong then, and this is wrong now. Do we want to do the same as the nazis to a religious group??

Think about it.

I've thought about it. I believe in the freedom of speech and am against any form of censorship.

Condemn the cartoonist if you like, but I think we should defend his right to say what he wants.

 

[Vlad the Impala]

no, never what they are. but always what they choose. it is only when you question something (part of which is ridicule) that you can ever evaluate it.

 

[London Irish]

The key issue is in fact: should this newspaper have the right to print this cartoon if they so wish. The answer, I think, is YES.

No I don't think that's the issue at all! Of course they had a right to publish this misguided crap, there were no government laws of prior restraint operating over the press in any of these countries, and nor should there be.

The "key" question is whethere they were right to do so! Responsibilities flow from "rights" - and I'm afraid on this occasion the newspapers exercised their responsibility deplorably!

You must realise the world-shaping context of political events we are operating in right now?

We have the Arab world enraged against repeated unlawful western intervention into their countries by a bullying Christian superpower. We have the shocking hypocrisy of the fate of the Palestinian people and western support for corrupt pro-western sheik tyrannies across the Arab world. We have Muslim communities in the west who oppose the west's wars for oil and strategic dominance being repeatedly defamed for being supporters of tiny Muslim extreme fundamentalist groups.

Yet here we have a bludering idiot cartoonist and newspaper steaming right in and accusing every Muslim of being a terrorist, which essentially is what calling their prophet a terrorist is.

Now the Salman Rushdie case and the Sikh play are entirely different and exist in a completely different context. They are representatives of voices within immigrant communities asking nuanced and complex questions about their racial and religious identities. Silencing these voices is totally wrong and should be opposed by all.

Please don't compare Salman Rushdie and Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti with this f***ing blundering clown of a cartoonist.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Somewhere between free speech and incitement there is a line that should not be crossed.

I believe in free speech but I also believe the likes of Abu Hamza, the hook-handed cleric, should be silenced because his rantings are so clearly anti-social.

The editors of the publications that show these cartoons should be ashamed. What's the best thing that can happen? A quick laugh. What the worst thing that can happen? Exactly what we've got now, more ammo for the anti-West brigade and who knows where that will lead?

 

[DJ Leon]

No I don't think that's the issue at all! Of course they had a right to publish this misguided crap, there were no government laws of prior restraint operating over the press in any of these countries, and nor should they be.

The "key" question is whethere they were right to do so! Responsibilities flow from "rights" - and I'm afraid on this occasion the newspapers exercised their responsibility deplorably!

You must realise the world-shaping context of political events we are operating in right now?

We have the Arab world enraged against repeated unlawful western intervention into their countries by a bullying Christian superpower. We have the shocking hypocrisy of the fate of the Palestinian people and western support for corrupt pro-western ty We have Muslim communities in the west who oppose such intervention being repeatedly defamed for being supporters of tiny Muslim extreme fundamentalist groups.

Yet hear we have a bludering idiot cartoonist and newspaper steaming right in and accusing every Muslim of being a terrorist, which essentially is what calling their prophet a terrorist is.

Now the Salman Rushdie case and the Sikh play are entirely different and exist in a completely different context. They are representatives of voices within immigrant communities asking nuanced and complex questions about their racial and religious identities. Silencing these voices is totally wrong and should be opposed by all.

Please don't compare Salman Rushdie and Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti with this f***ing blundering clown of a cartoonist.

Indeed I am directly comparing Salman Rushdie and Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti with this cartoonist. Simply because they've all done something to offend religious groups. The value of what they did doesn't have anything to do with it - it's their right to do it that is the important thing. Besides, surely the Rushdie thing had little to do with immigrant communities, the threat was from the Middle East, wasn't it?

Obviously I agree with you, the cartoonist shouldn't have done what he did, nor should the paper have published it. However, this is now a question of freedom of speech, which is why European newspapers are reprinting the cartoons - it's a defiance against calls to dictate what they can or can't publish.

 

[Juan Albion]

IThe Life of Brian did piss people off, but people were able to get their rant into papers, onto telly and thru their politicians. The fact the majority of people in the UK are not praticing Christians ment that we saw the film for what it was. A film that was funny. In fact as the Python team recently recalled it was not anti Christ, anti Church. Far from it. It stressed there was only one Messiah and it was not Brian.

I'm sorry, do people think we Christians don't find Life of Brian funny? Maybe a few didn't but that doesn't mean even the majority were opposed to it. I don't know anyone in my theological classes who doesn't find it funny, it is one of the most quoted films in our studies, and I own the DVD.

Anyone saying 'the Christians didn't like it' is like someone who says 'Brighton fans want McGhee out.' It is true some Brighton fans probably do want him out but it is wrong to tar them all with the same brush. Same goes for Christians and most things - there is no concensus (sometimes a shame, but we are all human so vive la difference!). I'm sorry if this goes against the neat row of pigeonholes that some people, usually through ignorance, like to put everyone into (and I'm not picking on you London Calling, this is just a general comment).

 

[Tesco in Disguise]

What the worst thing that can happen? Exactly what we've got now, more ammo for the anti-West brigade and who knows where that will lead?

what? so you don't print it just because you fear that muslims may find it offensive and we all know what they might do? sorry. that's not reason enough. though i do agree with you that there is definitely a line between encitement of racial tension and freedom of speech. abu hamza should not be allowed to speak publically but the cartoons should be allowed to be published. it may be irresponsible on the part of the editors, or even in very bad taste (in fact, i think it probably is) but it is not telling anyone to do any harm to muslims. it is having a pop at a religious figure. true, it may be tasteless but if they don't like it, muslims have just got to ignore it.
to be honest, i wonder why they can't.