Mohammad Cartoon
In Defence of the right to offend.
The Dutch cartoon depicting a indefinable Mohammad with a bomb on its head, may have been seen to be in bad taste given the very sensitive nature of the eastern culture of the Muslims religious tradition, But it has to be right that providing there is no deliberate incitement to foster violent actions then the ability to voice or write any comment has to be defended. Although many people today seems to jump high with a moral indignation attitude of being ‘offended’ by many things or have a sense of seeing western things as being offensive, there should be no right to take a retaliatory action in the form of promoting of or calling for actual violence and outright destruction, which some Muslims seem quite happy to do.
Where is the barrier between offensive material, proscribe material or good vs. bad taste? A line of demarcation may be drawn by democratic acceptance of laws hopefully wrapped with ‘common sense’ fairness or custom and practice. This may be only active in cultures that have a practical disciplined regards for such laws controlled by some degree of self restraint and an outlet via peaceful demonstration process, again perhaps only operable in democratic states.
I agree that there should be an element of respect for different beliefs but not though to the extent that one is cowed to the other through fear of repercussions. I want to be able to offer offence to someone I do not like and don’t agree with and if that upsets Israel for acting in an apartheid manner towards Palestinians, paedophiles for abusing children, or some Muslims for wanting to destroy the wicked west, tough!
It would seem to me that there is a growing obvious clash of culture between the west and east with the biggest difference being that one has a reasonable history of democracy, not now overtly led by religious fervour and the other never having democracy, probable does not want it and is easily swayed or controlled by religious zealots. The fact is that Muslims take their religion very seriously, perhaps rather like the early Christians did, both using it (religion) as a crutch to the oppressiveness of regimes that resist change.
I do not want to see developed the caricature obscenity of holy crusades or jihads, when a broad secular society offers the most flexible and open path to the future. This secularism is not going to happen if there is no dialogue and expressed views because people get offended at opinions, silly jokes, puns, innuendos, plays and books etc.
All this does remind me of a childhood rhyme – “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me”-.
So say what you like, where you like, how you like but if you incite to actually raise the stick or stone that’s when you should get stopped!
P 7.2.06
P 15.9.06
Addendum:
A speech recently by the Pope, Speaking in Germany, quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul, who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things.
The emperor's words were, he said: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
Pope Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his but Emperor Manuel 11 and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".
"The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application," he added in the concluding part of his speech.
"Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today."
This reference to “evil inhuman things” was taken by the muslim as a slight on their developing caricature and religion, the result of which was that in a few countries muslim went on a rampage attacking people and buildings. Some people took this as a sign that what the pope said indicated that the emperors was right.
As in this case again, the muslim believers are supporting the increasing impression that they are not peace loving religious tolerates. The muslim religion is being taken over by power seeking patriarchal zealots and violent bigots. The Pope of course apologised for their misunderstanding.
The Dutch cartoon depicting a indefinable Mohammad with a bomb on its head, may have been seen to be in bad taste given the very sensitive nature of the eastern culture of the Muslims religious tradition, But it has to be right that providing there is no deliberate incitement to foster violent actions then the ability to voice or write any comment has to be defended. Although many people today seems to jump high with a moral indignation attitude of being ‘offended’ by many things or have a sense of seeing western things as being offensive, there should be no right to take a retaliatory action in the form of promoting of or calling for actual violence and outright destruction, which some Muslims seem quite happy to do.
Where is the barrier between offensive material, proscribe material or good vs. bad taste? A line of demarcation may be drawn by democratic acceptance of laws hopefully wrapped with ‘common sense’ fairness or custom and practice. This may be only active in cultures that have a practical disciplined regards for such laws controlled by some degree of self restraint and an outlet via peaceful demonstration process, again perhaps only operable in democratic states.
I agree that there should be an element of respect for different beliefs but not though to the extent that one is cowed to the other through fear of repercussions. I want to be able to offer offence to someone I do not like and don’t agree with and if that upsets Israel for acting in an apartheid manner towards Palestinians, paedophiles for abusing children, or some Muslims for wanting to destroy the wicked west, tough!
It would seem to me that there is a growing obvious clash of culture between the west and east with the biggest difference being that one has a reasonable history of democracy, not now overtly led by religious fervour and the other never having democracy, probable does not want it and is easily swayed or controlled by religious zealots. The fact is that Muslims take their religion very seriously, perhaps rather like the early Christians did, both using it (religion) as a crutch to the oppressiveness of regimes that resist change.
I do not want to see developed the caricature obscenity of holy crusades or jihads, when a broad secular society offers the most flexible and open path to the future. This secularism is not going to happen if there is no dialogue and expressed views because people get offended at opinions, silly jokes, puns, innuendos, plays and books etc.
All this does remind me of a childhood rhyme – “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me”-.
So say what you like, where you like, how you like but if you incite to actually raise the stick or stone that’s when you should get stopped!
P 7.2.06
P 15.9.06
Addendum:
A speech recently by the Pope, Speaking in Germany, quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul, who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things.
The emperor's words were, he said: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
Pope Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his but Emperor Manuel 11 and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".
"The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application," he added in the concluding part of his speech.
"Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today."
This reference to “evil inhuman things” was taken by the muslim as a slight on their developing caricature and religion, the result of which was that in a few countries muslim went on a rampage attacking people and buildings. Some people took this as a sign that what the pope said indicated that the emperors was right.
As in this case again, the muslim believers are supporting the increasing impression that they are not peace loving religious tolerates. The muslim religion is being taken over by power seeking patriarchal zealots and violent bigots. The Pope of course apologised for their misunderstanding.
posted by Renot at 6:19 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home