In My case, there is a strong component of anti-clericalism, but the fact that I found these cartoons to be pretty benign, seriously. People get offended way too easily today.
And to answer Migeru's point yesterday (that I was selective in the bigotry I recognised, i.e. only anti-French and anti-Israel), the core of the problem is not that Muslims want to make us acknowledge the supposed tastelessness of the cartoons, it is that they want us not to publish these things, not as a courtesy to them, but as an obligation.
When I criticize the anti-French bias (as I see it) in the English language press, (i) I absolutely am not trying to prevent them from publishing their stuff, (ii) I am not contesting their right to have such opinions, (iii) I try to make more visible some hidden assumptions or prejudices, and (iv) I am trying to get across different perceptions or different facts, i.e. I am trying to bring new information on the table to try to convince whoever is reading me to weigh the original article differently. Here we are told that we must not represent Muhammad, full stop.
And I'll say it again. These cartoons are pretty tame, frankly (the original 12, not the additional 3, which are indeed highly offensive).
So the appropriate thing would have been for JP to publish a reply by a representative of the muslim community, explaining why they found such images distasteful or inappropriate, and informing readers that this would not be done in the Muslim word, and that they hoped that the Danes would extend them that courtesy even here in Denmark. And hey, it might even have worked. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
...and we didn't accept that obligation. (Making public apologies is no such obligation.) Rasmussen could have told this to the 11 ambassadors instead of snubbing them, alongside with acknowledging the insulting nature. The above is not the core of the problem. The re-publications were pure posturing.
When I criticize the anti-French bias...
I think Migeru saw you not noticing Danish bias.
These cartoons are pretty tame, frankly
You are not the one to decide that. And to repeat our point, it's not the cartoons alone, it's the context and motivation too.
So the appropriate thing would have been for JP to publish a reply by a representative of the muslim community, explaining why they found such images distasteful or inappropriate, and informing readers that this would not be done in the Muslim word, and that they hoped that the Danes would extend them that courtesy even here in Denmark. And hey, it might even have worked.
On that, fully agreed. And this should have been done back in September already. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Well, first of all, yes it is up to me and any other individual to decide that, as free and independent individuals. And this is exactly the point Jerome and many of us are emphasising, that no one should be allowed to decide what we are allowed to say or do as long as it is within the legal framework of a society. By saying this you are depriving individuals their right to have an opinion and stating it. I could illustrate this by saying who are you or any other individual (in this case Muslims included), to decide whether I am competent or even allowed to have an opinion on this matter?
The ban on depicting Muhammed is an Islamic ban and not a Universal one. It is a religious ban and thus can not be expected to be upheld by non-Muslims or non-religious people. You could, and often should, out of respect, refrain from doing such a deed, but you can not be forced to silence through violence or threats of violence.
As for the motivations behind this whole issue it is pure speculations and, although rightwing extremists have some splendid times these days, not very fruitful to ponder over given the fact that we have no conclusive evidence pointing towards certain motivations. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
Decide what? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
You are not the one to decide that.
Yes I am and others too. That is my prerogative as a free and independent citizen. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
No, he was saying I did not notice anti-Muslim bias with as much alacrity as anti-French or anti-Jewish one. Fair enough, but the site is open for others to do so, and indeed it is being done.
You are not the one to decide that
Then in which case you are not the one to tell me if I should be offended by the behavior of those that choose to represent the Muslims to the world. I am telling you that I am seriously offended by your presumption. Will you apologize to me now?
(I am asking you in jest, but the question is the logical outcome of your contention that the muslims have the sole right to decide what offends them). In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
That's essentially the same. And what relation does that have with what you then wrote?
Then in which case you are not the one to tell me if I should be offended by the behavior of those that choose to represent the Muslims to the world.
I never told you not to.
muslims have the sole right to decide what offends them
Offense is not a matter of decision. It is emotional. The form one expresses offense can de debated, but I have never challenged your objections to forms of showing offense by Muslims. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
