Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons.

[Pillywiggin]

I remember a similar controversy, but it was over the Virgin Mary done with horse crap. think it was horse crap.

Chris Ofili's painting used elephant feces. It also had little angels made out of buttocks.

Those Brits...

[Yeahduff]

That Blessed Virgin Mary controversy was the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It takes a special kind of person to walk into a gallery for a show called "Sensation" where an absurd number of sign were posted warning of controversial content and be utterly shocked to find something offensive. And it isn't even fucking offensive if you give it a few seconds thought.

Though it does come down to one basic principle in the west "separation of church and state", when that separation doesn't exist, religion dictates the will of the people. When that separation exists, the government can turn a blind eye to it's religious nutcases and still run the country. The government says we can have freedom of the press, so we do, even if it's the dilibertly offensive (simpsons, south park, family guy, and dozens of knock off shows, Political cartoons, GLBT friendly media) to one small part of the population, and they complain.

Actually it's a very large part of the population that they offend.

Well really it's "congress may may make no law regarding the establishment of a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof". "Seperation of church and state" isn't a very valid term.
Though that term is being twisted extensively to "limit the free exercise thereof."
It's illogical to make law from a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson. And even that was misenturpreted.

That seems messed up to me. But that just me, I guess. Sorry to get off subject.

The beauty of the constition is in it's vagueness. It's part of what's made it survive and thrive for twohundred some years. What exactly constitutes an establishment of religion? Certainly it means we can't create a Church of the United States (as most colonists had their fill of the Church of England), but does that mean if we just favor episcipalians and base our laws off of their interpretation of biblical scripture, that's fine? I doubt it. A lot of people try to imagine why the framers made certain amendments etc, which I think is a foolish thing to do, really, because America of 1790 is a good deal different from America 2006. In either case, Jefferson's letter wasn't simply the basis of a law but an attempt to gain insight on what the term "establishment of religion" meant. The first amendment is the basis for the law, the letter was just context.

If seperation of church in state doesn't have a constitutional validity, it certainly has validity among the people. Most Christians are uncomfortable with the mixture of government affairs and religion, not just because of what it does to government, but to its effects on religion.

[McDuffies]

For a moment I thought someone saw an image of Virgin Mary in a pile of elephant dung like they see it in food or on tree stumps.

[TheSuburbanLetdown]

The virgin mary was spotted under a bridge not far from my house last summer. It caused a lot of traffic, and someone vandalized the stain.

[Pillywiggin]

This thing? No matter how hard I try I can't see it.

[Yeahduff]

I really liked the wording of that blurb.

To some the image appeared as a white outline of the Holy Mother's face wearing a shadowy cloak.

To the Chicago authorities it appeared to be a build-up of salt.

[Jim North]

Pfft. What do "authorities" really know, anyway?

[Christwriter]

My 2cents:

I'm a Christian, and I like to think I'm a devout one. I dislike labling my beliefs with overused words LIKE "belief" and "Religion" because I feel it cheepens my feelings to something superficial, irrational and easily set aside. So when I think about how other religions feel, I imagine, for a moment, that what was said was said about MY beliefs, not theirs.

And this is all based off of my gut, emotional reaction:

To truely be a follower of any religion, one element a person has to have is love for the deity involved and a devout belief that said deity is real. This is why I keep my mouth shut about my God so often. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING hurts me more than offensive, dismissive and belittling words about the God that I truely, deeply, and honestly love. It feels like an internal hemmorage that will not go away. I would rather die than do that to ANYBODY.

Which, if you stop and think about it, is what those twelve cartoons did to an awful lot of people who have been enduring a large amount of verbal AND physical abuse from the Western World for the past five years. A few of 'em are doing Very Bad Things. Sure. But the difference between terrorists and the average Muslem you meet on the street is HUGE.

Their reaction may be wrong, in that the political cartoonists deserved their say too. And yes, it's way out of proportion...if one doesn't consider that maybe, they're reacting to this and every other painful comment leveled at their beliefs by Western socioty. Sounds a little like (at the risk of sounding offensive) starting a whole civil rights movement around being told to give up a seat on a bus.

I am not defending their reaction, though frankly I don't see anything in their reaction that needs defending. Western media is a HUGELY insensative, abusive, voracious monster driven by public opinion and the need to get a few more advertising dollars (or pounds, or whatever) into the till. Western socioty puts up with it because it wasn't ALWAYS a hugely insensative, abusive, voracious monster. At one time, it had a conscience and it attempted to allow people subjected to it some vestige of a life. It did not immedately go for the jugular, and it did not immedately stab into the tender bits by turning it into a joke. Western socioty is the proverbial boiled frog. Muslem socioty has NOT had its feelings deadened by decades of escelating sarcastic digs, has NOT had its valued concepts and ideals held up for increasingly harsh criticisms and has NOT had to put up with humor-orented cruelty until (1. Western Media had the capabilty to broadcast said cruelties globally and (2. the stupidity of the few turned the monsters eye their way. To me, it looks like Muslems got dropped into the pot at full boil. Western media is treating Islam the same way it has treated Christianity for generations: Something to be criticized according to its most violent members and moments of abject stupidity, with absolutely no thought to how the victims of said criticism feel, because said victims are outnumbered by impartial viewers. But Christians are used to it and Muslems ARE NOT.

There is NO RIGHT to go through life unoffended, and I stand by this absolutely. But I do. not. think. that this reaction is entirely unwarrented or incomprehensable. People should have just as much right to stand up and say "That's ENOUGH, damn it, you're hurting me!" as others do to dig at the soft spots until they bleed.

In the case of verbal abuse from the press...they don't.

I agree with freedom of press absolutely. But just because they CAN inflict psychic pain doesn't mean that they SHOULD.

CW

[Bustertheclown]

My 2cents:

I'm a Christian, and I like to think I'm a devout one. I dislike labling my beliefs with overused words LIKE "belief" and "Religion" because I feel it cheepens my feelings to something superficial, irrational and easily set aside. So when I think about how other religions feel, I imagine, for a moment, that what was said was said about MY beliefs, not theirs.

And this is all based off of my gut, emotional reaction:

To truely be a follower of any religion, one element a person has to have is love for the deity involved and a devout belief that said deity is real. This is why I keep my mouth shut about my God so often. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING hurts me more than offensive, dismissive and belittling words about the God that I truely, deeply, and honestly love. It feels like an internal hemmorage that will not go away. I would rather die than do that to ANYBODY.

Which, if you stop and think about it, is what those twelve cartoons did to an awful lot of people who have been enduring a large amount of verbal AND physical abuse from the Western World for the past five years. A few of 'em are doing Very Bad Things. Sure. But the difference between terrorists and the average Muslem you meet on the street is HUGE.

Their reaction may be wrong, in that the political cartoonists deserved their say too. And yes, it's way out of proportion...if one doesn't consider that maybe, they're reacting to this and every other painful comment leveled at their beliefs by Western socioty. Sounds a little like (at the risk of sounding offensive) starting a whole civil rights movement around being told to give up a seat on a bus.

I am not defending their reaction, though frankly I don't see anything in their reaction that needs defending. Western media is a HUGELY insensative, abusive, voracious monster driven by public opinion and the need to get a few more advertising dollars (or pounds, or whatever) into the till. Western socioty puts up with it because it wasn't ALWAYS a hugely insensative, abusive, voracious monster. At one time, it had a conscience and it attempted to allow people subjected to it some vestige of a life. It did not immedately go for the jugular, and it did not immedately stab into the tender bits by turning it into a joke. Western socioty is the proverbial boiled frog. Muslem socioty has NOT had its feelings deadened by decades of escelating sarcastic digs, has NOT had its valued concepts and ideals held up for increasingly harsh criticisms and has NOT had to put up with humor-orented cruelty until (1. Western Media had the capabilty to broadcast said cruelties globally and (2. the stupidity of the few turned the monsters eye their way. To me, it looks like Muslems got dropped into the pot at full boil. Western media is treating Islam the same way it has treated Christianity for generations: Something to be criticized according to its most violent members and moments of abject stupidity, with absolutely no thought to how the victims of said criticism feel, because said victims are outnumbered by impartial viewers. But Christians are used to it and Muslems ARE NOT.

There is NO RIGHT to go through life unoffended, and I stand by this absolutely. But I do. not. think. that this reaction is entirely unwarrented or incomprehensable. People should have just as much right to stand up and say "That's ENOUGH, damn it, you're hurting me!" as others do to dig at the soft spots until they bleed.

In the case of verbal abuse from the press...they don't.

I agree with freedom of press absolutely. But just because they CAN inflict psychic pain doesn't mean that they SHOULD.

CW

Beautifully stated.

[Soldier Volkov]

Though it does come down to one basic principle in the west "separation of church and state", when that separation doesn't exist, religion dictates the will of the people. When that separation exists, the government can turn a blind eye to it's religious nutcases and still run the country. The government says we can have freedom of the press, so we do, even if it's the dilibertly offensive (simpsons, south park, family guy, and dozens of knock off shows, Political cartoons, GLBT friendly media) to one small part of the population, and they complain.

Actually it's a very large part of the population that they offend.

Well really it's "congress may may make no law regarding the establishment of a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof". "Seperation of church and state" isn't a very valid term.
Though that term is being twisted extensively to "limit the free exercise thereof."
It's illogical to make law from a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson. And even that was misenturpreted.

That seems messed up to me. But that just me, I guess. Sorry to get off subject.

yeahduff: The beauty of the constition is in it's vagueness. It's part of what's made it survive and thrive for twohundred some years. What exactly constitutes an establishment of religion? Certainly it means we can't create a Church of the United States (as most colonists had their fill of the Church of England), but does that mean if we just favor episcipalians and base our laws off of their interpretation of biblical scripture, that's fine? I doubt it. A lot of people try to imagine why the framers made certain amendments etc, which I think is a foolish thing to do, really, because America of 1790 is a good deal different from America 2006. In either case, Jefferson's letter wasn't simply the basis of a law but an attempt to gain insight on what the term "establishment of religion" meant. The first amendment is the basis for the law, the letter was just context.

If seperation of church in state doesn't have a constitutional validity, it certainly has validity among the people. Most Christians are uncomfortable with the mixture of government affairs and religion, not just because of what it does to government, but to its effects on religion.

All I'm saying is stop the abuse. Tell judges to stop using that phrase to prohibit the free excercise or religion. That letter shouldn't have even been used as context. It shouldn't have even been an issue! It's been badly misenturpreted on top of that. Imagine if I could write a private letter to group of my friends and get it made into one of the supreme laws of the land? Or Bush? Or Howard Dean? It's ridiculous.

I agree that establishing a state church would be a violation. And so would be basing laws on one view. Legislating morality is not very affective.
Publicly displaying religious symbols even on government property is not a violation.
Acknowlaging our religious heritage is not.
Acknowlaging the biblical basis of our core laws is not.
A government employee wearing a cross pendant to work is not.
A teacher keeping a bible in his desk is not.
Having a religious symbol on the school bulliten board is not.
Simply someone being offended by something religious doesn't make the thing illegal.
Teaching abstinance as a safe alternative is not.

Yet all these things are being outlawed by a personal letter by Thomas Jefferson. I am truly scared. Maybe I should become a politician and write a letter.

A good book on how the establishment clause is being twisted, and on much more is: 'The Supremicists' by By Phylis Schlafly. Give the book a try. I'm sure it'll give you a new perspective on things. Even though it is targeted to christians, it is very eye-opening and readable for anyone.

[PieceOfSkunk]

This thing? No matter how hard I try I can't see it.

It looks more like the girl from The Ring to me.

And if the protestors are mad about some silly cartoons in a newspaper, they ain't seen nuthin' yet. Warning: potentially annoying music.

[Soldier Volkov]

This thing? No matter how hard I try I can't see it.

It looks more like the girl from The Ring to me.

And if the protestors are mad about some silly cartoons in a newspaper, they ain't seen nuthin' yet. Warning: potentially annoying music.

Man, that was crazy.

[Grabmygoblin]

if the protestors are mad about some silly cartoons in a newspaper, they ain't seen nuthin' yet. Warning: potentially annoying music.

I never thought I'd say this, but thank God most theocratic nations censor the internet.

[Yeahduff]

Though it does come down to one basic principle in the west "separation of church and state", when that separation doesn't exist, religion dictates the will of the people. When that separation exists, the government can turn a blind eye to it's religious nutcases and still run the country. The government says we can have freedom of the press, so we do, even if it's the dilibertly offensive (simpsons, south park, family guy, and dozens of knock off shows, Political cartoons, GLBT friendly media) to one small part of the population, and they complain.

Actually it's a very large part of the population that they offend.

Well really it's "congress may may make no law regarding the establishment of a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof". "Seperation of church and state" isn't a very valid term.
Though that term is being twisted extensively to "limit the free exercise thereof."
It's illogical to make law from a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson. And even that was misenturpreted.

That seems messed up to me. But that just me, I guess. Sorry to get off subject.

yeahduff: The beauty of the constition is in it's vagueness. It's part of what's made it survive and thrive for twohundred some years. What exactly constitutes an establishment of religion? Certainly it means we can't create a Church of the United States (as most colonists had their fill of the Church of England), but does that mean if we just favor episcipalians and base our laws off of their interpretation of biblical scripture, that's fine? I doubt it. A lot of people try to imagine why the framers made certain amendments etc, which I think is a foolish thing to do, really, because America of 1790 is a good deal different from America 2006. In either case, Jefferson's letter wasn't simply the basis of a law but an attempt to gain insight on what the term "establishment of religion" meant. The first amendment is the basis for the law, the letter was just context.

If seperation of church in state doesn't have a constitutional validity, it certainly has validity among the people. Most Christians are uncomfortable with the mixture of government affairs and religion, not just because of what it does to government, but to its effects on religion.

All I'm saying is stop the abuse. Tell judges to stop using that phrase to prohibit the free excercise or religion. That letter shouldn't have even been used as context. It shouldn't have even been an issue! It's been badly misenturpreted on top of that. Imagine if I could write a private letter to group of my friends and get it made into one of the supreme laws of the land? Or Bush? Or Howard Dean? It's ridiculous.

I agree that establishing a state church would be a violation. And so would be basing laws on one view. Legislating morality is not very affective.
Publicly displaying religious symbols even on government property is not a violation.
Acknowlaging our religious heritage is not.
Acknowlaging the biblical basis of our core laws is not.
A government employee wearing a cross pendant to work is not.
A teacher keeping a bible in his desk is not.
Having a religious symbol on the school bulliten board is not.
Simply someone being offended by something religious doesn't make the thing illegal.
Teaching abstinance as a safe alternative is not.

Yet all these things are being outlawed by a personal letter by Thomas Jefferson. I am truly scared. Maybe I should become a politician and write a letter.

A good book on how the establishment clause is being twisted, and on much more is: 'The Supremicists' by By Phylis Schlafly. Give the book a try. I'm sure it'll give you a new perspective on things. Even though it is targeted to christians, it is very eye-opening and readable for anyone.

Quickly, as I lack the time. The judical precedent is based on the First Amendment. Not the letter. Stop pretending otherwise.

Yet all these things are being outlawed by a personal letter by Thomas Jefferson. I am truly scared. Maybe I should become a politician and write a letter.

You're being ridiculous.

[KittyKatBlack]

I haven't seen the comic, but really. People need to lighten up. I understand that it's not right to make fun of someone's religious beliefs, however, it's not like they're completly victims in this situation, and it's been taken way out of context, from what I've heard about it.

I think the point of the cartoon was not to make fun of Mohammed, or even the Muslim nation. The point of the cartoon was to point out how people are abusing and defacing the nature of the religion started by this man for their own selfish goals. That's what I've pulled from the various things I've read from it.

On top of that, many Iran newspapers have been depicting Jews and Isrealites in demonizing ways for years. In responce to the comic, one Iranian paper even held a 'contest' to make the most offensive comic they could using the Holocaust as a backdrop to try and show the US and it's supporters how it felt.

The difference: We don't care. If the comic is funny, it doesn't matter that is shows Hitler and Anne Frank in bed together. The sad part is, the comic wasn't even funny. Nor offensive. It was just trying to be insulting without even attempting to make a statement, or have a punchline.

Hell, I've seen pictures and animations people have made about the world trade center and 9-11, including the most offensive T-Shirt produced about the subject. Are they bad? Yes. It was a horrible event. Many people died, and it's not something to be taken lightly. Are they offensive? Probably to some people. Are they funny? Some are creative, and you really can't help but chuckle at some of them. Do I want to kill the people that made them? No. If someone wants to be an asshole about something, it's not my job, or right to force them not to be. The best I can do is say, "You're an asshole." and let them decide if they want to keep the label.

Do I think the Danish papers did the right thing? No.

Do people deserve to die over it? Definately not.

[Soldier Volkov]

Quickly, as I lack the time. The judical precedent is based on the First Amendment. Not the letter. Stop pretending otherwise.

Yet all these things are being outlawed by a personal letter by Thomas Jefferson. I am truly scared. Maybe I should become a politician and write a letter.

You're being ridiculous.

You're living in the land of Oz, my friend. Don't you watch the news? (CNN doesn't count)
The book I recomended will help. Please give it a try. If nothing else, It will help you understand my perspective a little better. You want to be open-minded, don't you?

I decline to participate furthur in this thread.

[Pillywiggin]

You're living in the land of Oz, my friend.

Wrong continent.

The book I recomended will help. Please give it a try. If nothing else, It will help you understand my perspective a little better. You want to be open-minded, don't you?

Are you actually expecting someone to go out and slap down money for a book just so that they can understand the political perspective of some random person posting in the off topic section of a forum devoted to webcomics???

I decline to participate furthur in this thread.

Cheers.

[Alschroeder]

Most Christians are uncomfortable with the mixture of government affairs and religion, not just because of what it does to government, but to its effects on religion.

Agree completely. When religion and government mix, you get things like Cardinal Richelieu.---Al

[RPin]

Did anyone is this thread mention the nazis or Hitler-kun yet? I think it's about time.

[Soldier Volkov]

You're living in the land of Oz, my friend.

Wrong continent.

The book I recomended will help. Please give it a try. If nothing else, It will help you understand my perspective a little better. You want to be open-minded, don't you?

Are you actually expecting someone to go out and slap down money for a book just so that they can understand the political perspective of some random person posting in the off topic section of a forum devoted to webcomics???

It's not that expensive.

My views are held by a very large number of people.