I want to critizise religion!!!

[Lillefix]

Yes, to avoid being sued for libel. You can't just make derogatory attacks with the intent of defaming someone without backing it up. If Mohammad was alive today, he would simply sue the newspaper, and win.

Free Speech doesn't actually mean that you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want, and with good reason.

Perhaps you don't think we have good enough reason to make fun of islam?
I'll give you one:

http://www.nisnews.nl/public/090408_2.htm

A primary school in Amsterdam wished to provide its pupils with an understanding for other cultures. But during a visit to a mosque, the children were told they were dogs.

With a view to developing understanding and respect for other cultures among children, primary school De Horizon regularly organises outings to various religious organisations. The chairman of the El Mouchidine mosque told the children from group 7 (aged 10) and their chaperones however that non-Muslims are dogs.

I'm blaiming islam for that one, and I want to make fun of islam for that one.

Edit:
You think Mohammad would win if he sued? Do you think Stalin or Mao would win if they sued western newspapers for the caricatures of them?

 

[Grimz101]

So by calling the children and chaperones dogs, this entitles us to mock the prophet Muhammed?
weak

Think of it this way..
To Arabs and that whole region, being Muslim is their race. That is the first thing they identifity themselves as..
Insulting their religion is like calling a Black person a N*ger.

All because other religions are more liberal, such as Christianity, it does not mean others should become more liberal.
Although i do agree it would be wise, thats beside the point.

 

[Lillefix]

Let's compare it with the chinese shall we? A few months ago everyone was criticising China about Tibet. Talking about boycotting the olympics. No one cared about their feelings, about the feelings of the chinese people, even when they were obviously insulted. Almost no one cared. I'm not defending the chinese. What I'm asking is why we can't criticise and make fun of islam in the same we we make fun of the faults of chinese nationalism? What is the difference between nationalism and and religion that makes it possible to make fun of nationalism, but not religion (and Islam in particular)

 

[T!ck]

The difference is clearly that Chinese nationalists won't try to blow up stuff in retaliation. Also if they were Chinese nationalists, strongly supportive of communism, they would likely be atheist and therefore more rational. Fanaticism is more common in religion than in politics.

 

[Lillefix]

The difference is clearly that Chinese nationalists won't try to blow up stuff in retaliation. Also if they were Chinese nationalists, strongly supportive of communism, they would likely be atheist and therefore more rational. Fanaticism is more common in religion than in politics.

If you mean we should accept to be threatened to silence, we're on a very dangerous road.

 

[T!ck]

No, something definitely needs to be done. I don't think drawing cartoons that enrage them is improving things though.
They need help, to be liberated from religion, not criticised.

 

[Grimz101]

China is a goverment and non democratic, boycotting it in effect protesting against Goverment action.

Islam however is a religion.

 

[Lillefix]

China is a goverment and non democratic, boycotting it in effect protesting against Goverment action.

Islam however is a religion.

We all saw the chinese took it personally, so what's really the difference?

 

[Grimz101]

We all saw the chinese took it personally, so what's really the difference?

Human right violations apparently.. well i dont really know now im not an expert on the situation there. It is moral to oppose the china goverment to a degree, and productive due to the fact chinise politicians have taken note of the west's opinions.

While what productivity is there in drawing cartoons of Muhammed that Muslims find offensive?

 

[El_Machinae]

With a view to developing understanding and respect for other cultures among children, primary school De Horizon regularly organises outings to various religious organisations. The chairman of the El Mouchidine mosque told the children from group 7 (aged 10) and their chaperones however that non-Muslims are dogs.

That's a pretty cool name for a church.
Just sayin ...

 

[History_Buff]

Perhaps you don't think we have good enough reason to make fun of islam?
I'll give you one:

http://www.nisnews.nl/public/090408_2.htm

I'm blaiming islam for that one, and I want to make fun of islam for that one.

Edit:
You think Mohammad would win if he sued? Do you think Stalin or Mao would win if they sued western newspapers for the caricatures of them?

Good. Blame Islam for that, you're pretty well justified there I would think, assuming the article is trustworthy (I only glanced at it). But if you're going to make a comic about it, make it something clever, or at least a stupid pun involving Mohammad and dogs or something. Don't just draw him with no pants on. It's not funny, it rightfully pisses people off, and it doesn't serve any purpose in the end.

No, Stalin and Mao would likely lose in court, because the crimes they've comitted are well documented and accepted as historical fact. You can draw Hitler and Stalin killing millions of people because it's not an attack on their reputation. They did it, and just about everyone knows it.

Whereas in the comic here, there's no real reason to think that Mohammad endorses suicide bombings (that looked like some sort of bomb belt, I could be wrong) or that his penis was small (as someone seemed to be way too offended by). It's stupid and immature. Wanna draw him killing Roman soldiers? Go for it.

 

[RedRalph]

Hang on a minute, lets not turn this into another attack on Islam when there are plenty of equally ridiculous religions out there to make fun of. Believe me, there are plenty of Catholics who think their religion is beyond any type of criticism. and the same goes for Judaism, Protestants, Hindus etc...

for some reason religion is held in this high esteem, even though any religion is less credible than even the most ridiculous political beliefs. I'm not syaing any religion is worse. but there are resons to believe in all political views, things that tie the views to the real, non imagined and physically present world. Not with religion. I dont see why it should be kept in this seperate box where its beyond criticism, cause lets face it, its all a load of bollix. and it should be critised as such.

 

[philippe]

for some reason religion is held in this high esteem, even though any religion is less credible than even the most ridiculous political beliefs. I'm not syaing any religion is worse. but there are resons to believe in all political views, things that tie the views to the real, non imagined and physically present world. Not with religion. I dont see why it should be kept in this seperate box where its beyond criticism, cause lets face it, its all a load of bollix. and it should be critised as such.

It is not all a load of bollix. Please, you are giving atheïsts a bad name by generalising so much.

 

[RedRalph]

It is not all a load of bollix. Please, you are giving atheïsts a bad name by generalising so much.

I'm not atheist. No, not every aspect of every religion is bollix, thats too broad of a generalisation. But religion as a whole is. Its beliefs that have no shred of credibility and are based on blind faith, the definition of having no reason behind them. As I said, even compared to the most dreadful political stances, like fascism, they lack credibility. Fascism, as stomach-turningly loathsome as it is, as least has its basis in reality. Religion dosent. I'm just so sick of it being this sacrosanct idea which cannot be mocked for reasons no one can adequately explain.

dont get me wrong; I'm not saying all religion should be mocked all of the time, there is no point in causing needless offence (in fact its completely counter-productive), but by the same token if you feel like micking someones beliefs which you find ridiculous, they dont deserve any special protection from comment merely because they are religious.

 

[Brighteye]

Isn't the whole point of suicide bombings that Islam endorses them? Maybe it's a perverted form of Islam, but nonetheless the bombers believe that they are fighting a just war for their God.
So drawing Mohammed with a bomb round his chest isn't too far from the truth. If the bombers find it offensive, then they're being hypocritical.

 

[scy12]

Isn't the whole point of suicide bombings that Islam endorses them? Maybe it's a perverted form of Islam, but nonetheless the bombers believe that they are fighting a just war for their God.
So drawing Mohammed with a bomb round his chest isn't too far from the truth. If the bombers find it offensive, then they're being hypocritical.

So truthful. It is like they are saying " Stop portraying Muslims as violent or we will kill you ."

Well not all Muslims are violent but those who are violent deserve to be portrayed as such.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Why is it that we treat criticism of religion, be it christianity or islam, differently than criticism of, say political views. Newspapers can make fun of political parties and their leaders but they seldom make fun of religion because it "offends". Why is it we never think of all the republicans we offend when we criticize or make fun of George Bush. Or why can newspapers mock socialists without anyone condemning it. Why does not free speech apply to religion? Why should newspaper care about they offend christians or muslims more than they care about offending republicans or socialists.

http://www.adressa.no/nyheter/trondheim/article1094459.ece

A norwegian newspaper has been criticized for publishing this picture after the bombing of the danish embassy, because it "offends" muslims. Why on earth should they care? No one cares when they criticize our political parties.

By the way his t-shirt says "I am Mohammad and no one dares to print me".

Oh, you poor person! You're so oppressed by the religionists! All you wanted to do was draw a caricature of Mohammed as a terrorist who is uncircumcised, causing lots of tolerant people to be mad at you!

Hey! The reason you can't criticise religion is because all you do is draw disgusting images, make fun, and spread hate. We don't draw images of, say, Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens pulling their clothes off revealing a t-shirt and bombs with the message "Science is on my side," or something likethat.

Politics, in the grand scheme of things, is much less important to people than their religions.

 

[T!ck]

Politics, in the grand scheme of things, is much less important to people than their religions.

Thankyou, that was the point I was trying to get across yesterday.

For any religious people, what is worse, criticism from atheists or criticism from other theist groups? Or do you view both in the same light?

 

[Mirc]

For any religious people, what is worse, criticism from atheists or criticism from other theist groups? Or do you view both in the same light?

I view them in the same light, not that I often care much. I have my own ways, you have yours. I chose my own ways, I didn't "inherit" them or take them from a "sheep" mentality, so whatever works for each one of us.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Thankyou, that was the point I was trying to get across yesterday.

For any religious people, what is worse, criticism from atheists or criticism from other theist groups? Or do you view both in the same light?

I'd say that criticism from atheist groups is worse. Other theist groups are just attacking some of your beliefs, while in reality many of our beliefs are similar. Atheists attack all and everyone's beliefs.