Some thoughts about the Mohammed Cartoons

[sol invictus]

double post

 

[Jigsaw_Psyche]

I said nothing of the kind. Point out one single place where I said "Religion X sucks

That poster was pointing out how the Tu Quoque fallacy works, not saying you said that. Yes you did use tu quoque by presenting Christian texts in an attempt to show christianity was just as bad. This is the very definition of this fallacy! I had spent half and hour composing a response to your previous post to me, but then I decided not to post. I have explained many times to you, but I believe you are just here to troll this thread and engage in logical fallacies in efforts to discourage conversation on this topic/religion; thus I will not be feeding you anymore.

You may begin your logical fallacies FTW posts now

 

[sol invictus]

That poster was pointing out how the Tu Quoque fallacy works, not saying you said that.

Oh, really? So why did s/he say

That's exactly what you are doing and that IS tu quoque.

?

Yes you did use tu quoque by presenting Christian texts in an attempt to show christianity was just as bad.

Again, total BS. I NEVER said Christianity is bad. Are you really so incapable of comprehending this simple concept?

Here, I'll make it bigger:


Religions are not defined by books.

The bible does not equal Christianity.

The bible says horrible things, but that does not mean Christianity, or Christians, are horrible.

The Koran does not equal Islam.

The Koran says horrible things, but that does not mean Islam, or Muslims, are horrible.

 

[Macoy]

What's the point of the books, then?

 

[sol invictus]

What's the point of the books, then?

They form an important part of the religion, what they say influences it profoundly in many ways, and it's essential to study them if you're interested in learning more about it. But you must bear in mind that these books started as documents which were primarily political, forged by specific sets of events and circumstances at the time they were written - and have remained so ever since. They have never been interpreted literally, not at any time in history - in fact that would be literally impossible, because they are often totally self-contradictory.

A religion is far, far more than just those books - it's an institution, a vast collection of sacred art, physical landmarks, music and ideas, and most of all, a huge number of people, alive and dead, together with their beliefs.

To draw sharp conclusions about such a huge and complex structure based on a few lines from one of the sacred texts is.... utterly ridiculous.

 

[Macoy]

They form an important part of the religion, what they say influences it profoundly in many ways, and it's essential to study them if you're interested in learning more about it. But you must bear in mind that these books started as documents which were primarily political, forged by specific sets of events and circumstances at the time they were written - and have remained so ever since. They have never been interpreted literally, not at any time in history - in fact that would be literally impossible, because they are often totally self-contradictory.

A religion is far, far more than just those books - it's an institution, a vast collection of sacred art, physical landmarks, music and ideas, and most of all, a huge number of people, alive and dead, together with their beliefs.

To draw sharp conclusions about such a huge and complex structure based on a few lines from one of the sacred texts is.... utterly ridiculous.

Maybe it might be better to dump the lot, and start from fresh.

Less baggage.

 

[gtc]

And let me add that I never saw even a single mention anywhere of this hypocrisy. The same newspaper that had just published editorials excoriating "the Muslim world" for their disregard of freedom of expression published an article on the ban without so much as a peep. (The ban was instituted some months before the cartoon crisis, but France's highest court upheld it shortly after.)

This argument would only work if refusing to allow something to be published was morally equivalent to advocating murder; rioting and burning down buildings. It isn't.

Some people find any image of the prophet offensive.

Just about anything that anyone does offends someone else. I can't see why we should care about the feelings of people who don't realise that.

Just like some people find any image of christ as a model offensive.

Such as?

That makes it very hard for a rational person to see that kind of debate as anything other than overt racism.

Please specify what race Muslims are.

Many people identify strongly with their religion. There is no way you can attack it and not attack them - that was the whole point of the cartoon thing. If you can't understand that, go live life for a little longer and come back when you've figured it out.

Please explain why I should care about the feelings of people who are going to get violently offended with me because someone on another continent decided to draw a picture of a school boy named Mohammed.

Really? I hadn't heard about this. Where did it happen?

Google 'cat meat sheik' for an example of a preacher who's words appear to support this view.

 

[JoeEllison]

Please explain why I should care about the feelings of people who are going to get violently offended with me because someone on another continent decided to draw a picture of a school boy named Mohammed.

This points out the fundamental flaw in your position, and the position of much of the Western world. What you are claiming is approximately equivalent to claiming that the Boston Tea Party was based on a hatred of an infusion of steeping leaves in hot water, sometimes including honey, sugar, milk and/or cream.

 

[gtc]

This points out the fundamental flaw in your position, and the position of much of the Western world. What you are claiming is approximately equivalent to claiming that the Boston Tea Party was based on a hatred of an infusion of steeping leaves in hot water, sometimes including honey, sugar, milk and/or cream.

You are suggesting that there was more to the protests than anger over portraying Mohammed? You are probably right but the discussion seems to have been about the anger caused by the cartoons themselves.

We can broaden the topic out to discuss whether the cartoons were just the event that triggered the protests or the real underlying cause of the protests.

 

[Kopji]

The publishing of the cartoons imply a loss of power of those leaders whose job it is to protect the memory of Mohammed. To recover that perceived loss, it is now necessary to show that they are to be feared, respected, and still have influence.

This can either be done by promoting violence and riots, or by showing that they can effect change in western laws by making it (the perceived blasphemy) a crime. Either result would achieve their goal of maintaining power.

A more direct solution to solving the challenge to their power is by promoting the killing of the cartoonists themselves. So in the final analysis, I agree with the response of the papers to these physical threats- republishing the cartoons.

 

[Philip]

According to the Bible it's mandatory to kill anyone that doesn't obey Christian priests or judges:

From the Oxford Study Bible (one of the better translations):

12 Anyone who presumes to reject the decision either of the priest ministering there to the Lord your God,
or of the judge, is to be put to death; thus you will purge Israel of wickedness.
13 Then all the people when they hear of it will be afraid, and never again show such presumption.

That's Deuteronomy 17:12 and 13.

Yeah, those Christian priests and judges in ancient Israel were real bastards.

 

[sol invictus]

This argument would only work if refusing to allow something to be published was morally equivalent to advocating murder; rioting and burning down buildings. It isn't.

Where did that come from? Which argument? I didn't equate the reaction to the cartoons to the actions of the French court, and I made no moral comparison of any kind.

I simply pointed out the insufferable hypocrisy of the western press blathering about how the reaction to the cartoons demonstrates this basic gap between western and Islamic culture, because it shows that those people over there don't respect freedom of expression, and don't understand that it's a core value of our society, and as a result of this basic difference there's a fundamental clash of civilizations going on.

Then they don't bat an eyelash when a mildly provocative (to Christians) ad is banned for offending people's innermost beliefs by the highest courts in several Western countries. It's amazing.

Just about anything that anyone does offends someone else. I can't see why we should care about the feelings of people who don't realise that.

Because we might not want to offend people. Do you obey social norms in your daily life, even though many of them are completely silly and random? You do because you're used to them, and otherwise otherwise your life would be difficult.

Such as?

Umm.... the French court we were just discussing?

Please specify what race Muslims are.

For Jews, there's anti-Semitism. I don't know a word in English to describe systematic prejudice against Muslims. Rather telling, isn't it?

in any case, part of all of this is racism against Arabs and Persians.

Please explain why I should care about the feelings of people who are going to get violently offended with me because someone on another continent decided to draw a picture of a school boy named Mohammed.

You should care because it's not nice to have people violently offended and angry with you.

You are suggesting that there was more to the protests than anger over portraying Mohammed? You are probably right but the discussion seems to have been about the anger caused by the cartoons themselves.

But that's just another example of the hypocrisy of the west. It's much easier to marvel at how such a ridiculously minor provocation (as it seems to us) provoked such violent reactions than it is to look in the mirror, remember a little recent history, and ask why there's such a deep reservoir of anger against the west.

 

[ixolite]

Oh I see - so you would have agreed had I said, "Christianity is a religion which instructs its followers to be murderous self-contradictory madmen who think Jews are forever guilty of the murder of Christ, all gays should be put to death, people who disobey priests and judges should be put to death, non-believers should be put to death (by the town-full), women found to be not virgins on their wedding night should stoned to death, etc."?

A. Don't confuse Judaism with Christianity aka OT rules with NT rules.
B. Don't confuse interpretation of bible with what the bible says itself (i.e. Jews= Jesus-murderers)
Otherwise I agree with you.

Your mistake is that you think there is a definition of Christianity which is independent of those that practice it. That is obvious nonsense - nearly everything about the religion has changed drastically over the years and varies widely across all the various Christian sects. And yet, all of them practice "Christianity".

No, it's not. Let me take another expamle: Nazism (a pseudo-religion): Do we judge Nazism according to the deeds of an Oskar Schindler or do we take a look at the founder and his book?

How is that possible? Because Christianity is not a static thing frozen in place by some old books. It's a hugely complex living and evolving phenomenon.

What evolves is the interpretation of scripture, not the scripture itself. The bible is still what it was when it was compiled.

I said nothing of the kind. Point out one single place where I said "Religion X sucks".

OMFG! *insertheadagainstwallsmiliehere*

I was trying to explain to you what a tu quoque is and how it relates to what you said. Tu quoque is nothing else, but the "You too"- or "Two wrongs make a right"-fallacy. When i.e. the crimes of person A are discussed before court, person A can't stand up and shout "But B did the same thing" as his defence, it wouldn't in any way excuse person A for his crimes. If you still don't understand, just google.

That the bible has nasty stuff in it has precisely as much relevance as the fact that the Koran does. An invalid, racist, and hypocritical attack was being launched on Islam and Muslims, and I pointed that out. Sorry if you don't like it.

In other words, you did a tu quoque. Since this is a sceptics board and most people (I assume) aren't even Christians, your tu quoque is pretty pointless too. (I'm an atheist Ex-Chrisitian, btw.)

Can we get back on topic now? I would still like to now how the cartoons are blasphemous, if Mo was only a mortal man? Maybe someone can answer that for me?

 

[ixolite]

For Jews, there's anti-Semitism. I don't know a word in English to describe systematic prejudice against Muslims. Rather telling, isn't it?

Well, maybe that is, because moslems aren't a race/ethnic group, but members of a certain faith.

in any case, part of all of this is racism against Arabs and Persians.

Oh, so all moslems are arabs and persians? Yvonne Ridley, Cat Stevens aka Yusuf Islam and all the others will feel excluded, not to mention the african, indian, indonesian and malaysian moslems.

 

[sol invictus]

A. Don't confuse Judaism with Christianity aka OT rules with NT rules.

Christian doctrine generally accepts the Torah as divine law.

B. Don't confuse interpretation of bible with what the bible says itself (i.e. Jews= Jesus-murderers)

I'm not sure whether you're claiming that the bible doesn't say that, or that it does but people re-interpret it. The former is false, the latter is my point.

No, it's not. Let me take another expamle: Nazism (a pseudo-religion): Do we judge Nazism according to the deeds of an Oskar Schindler or do we take a look at the founder and his book?

Great example! Because obviously when historians study National Socialism, they never think to do anything other than read Mein Kampf. They'd never look at German politics, or that little war you might have heard of, or the Holocaust, or the social and economic troubles of the Weimar republic, or the various actions of individual Germans. No, that would be a waste of time - they just read Mein Kampf!

Great example - thank you!

What evolves is the interpretation of scripture, not the scripture itself. The bible is still what it was when it was compiled.

And do you think Christianity is still what it was in the year 90 (or whatever date you want to assign)? No? Well gee, I guess there must be more to Christianity than the bible! Shocking!

Tu quoque is nothing else, but the "You too"- or "Two wrongs make a right"-fallacy.

You're telling me, sol invictus, what a Latin phrase means?

In other words, you did a tu quoque.

Do you really still not comprehend what I said? Even after I wrote it in bigger font?

For the fifth time, I said that religions are not determined by their holy books, and therefore judging them on that basis is a fallacy. To demonstrate the absurdity, I gave an example of what the same wrong logic would lead to if applied to Christianity. I picked Christianity because I guessed it's closer to home than Islam for most posters here, and it's easier to understand fallacies when they impact something you are familiar with.

 

[Jigsaw_Psyche]

Can we get back on topic now? I would still like to now how the cartoons are blasphemous, if Mo was only a mortal man? Maybe someone can answer that for me?

Yes I would also be very interested in this. If it is true that Muhammad was just another in the line of prophets, why did Muslims get so upset at his depiction? After all, Isa (Jesus) is also an Islamic prophet. Why don't Muslims get so worked up about depictions of him?
-JP

 

[sol invictus]

Well, maybe that is, because moslems aren't a race/ethnic group, but members of a certain faith.

Good point, since clearly all Jews are of the same race.

Oh, so all moslems are arabs and persians? Yvonne Ridley, Cat Stevens aka Yusuf Islam and all the others will feel excluded, not to mention the african, indian, indonesian and malaysian moslems.

I say, "part of all of this is racism against Arabs and Persians", and you say, "Oh, so all moslems are arabs and persians?"

You're just making yourself look stupid.

I would still like to now how the cartoons are blasphemous, if Mo was only a mortal man? Maybe someone can answer that for me?

Only some Muslims think so. Actually there are plenty of examples of depictions of the prophet in Islamic art. But for others, it's not just the prophet - some radical sects prohibit visual depictions of people in general. Here's a translation of a hadith:

Allah, Most High said: "And who is more unjust than those who try to create the likeness of My creation? Let them create an atom, or let them create a wheat grain, or let them create a barley grain."

and another

[...] All the painters who make pictures would be in the fire of Hell.

 

[gtc]

Sol, despite your protestations, you are still equating censoring an advert with rioting and demanding the murder of an artist. You are also talking about the Western press as if it is some sort of monolith with

Where did that come from? Which argument? I didn't equate the reaction to the cartoons to the actions of the French court, and I made no moral comparison of any kind.

Yes you did, repeatedly. More fundamentally, you are making the monstrously erroneous assumption that one court in France censoring an advert should somehow be the concern of the entire Western world or somehow reflects on the entire Western world.

Demanding that no one be allowed to 'insult' Islam; threatening murder and rioting to achieve that demand is something that affects numerous countries.
A court in France censoring an advert affects France and led to no violence and no threats.

If you can't see that the press in Australia had every right to be concerned about one but not the other then you have no idea about how the media works.

For Jews, there's anti-Semitism. I don't know a word in English to describe systematic prejudice against Muslims. Rather telling, isn't it?

It tells me a lot, indeed. A lot about how ignorant you are about this topic. Firstly, there is word in English. Secondly, you have no idea about the history of the term anti-Semitism. Thirdly, Muslim simply means someone who subscribes to the Islamic religion (plus those citizens of many Islamic dominated countries who are not legally entitled to alter their religion); Judaism has cultural and ethnic meanings as well as the religious.

in any case, part of all of this is racism against Arabs and Persians.

So why not say that then?

such a ridiculously minor provocation (as it seems to us)

But it is a ridiculously minor provocation.

remember a little recent history, and ask why there's such a deep reservoir of anger against the west.

Why don't you tell us why you think there is a deep reservoir of anger against the west.

 

[gtc]

Please tell us how we can live so as not to violently offend some groups of Muslims.

Pictures of Mohammed are out. Pictures in general are out.

Sunni has informed us that we need to kill all homosexuals and Israelis.

I believe paganism is frowned upon.

Short of converting to Islam how can we avoid violently offending at least some Muslims?

 

[sol invictus]

Sol, despite your protestations, you are still equating censoring an advert with rioting and demanding the murder of an artist.

Why do people here keep insisting on putting words in my mouth? This is a forum - all the previous posts are there. Please quote where I equated those. If you can't - and you can't - please stop saying I did.

More fundamentally, you are making the monstrously erroneous assumption that one court in France censoring an advert should somehow be the concern of the entire Western world or somehow reflects on the entire Western world.

The highest court in France, and courts in Italy, and in several other European countries in that case (I can dig up the articles if you insist). More recently, a Spanish newspaper was fined for a cartoon deemed offensive to the royal family there. There are plenty more examples of that in Europe. I can't speak about Australia - but in any case it was European countries which were the targets of most of these protests.

Firstly, there is word in English.

OK, Islamophobia. Note that's a neologism which was hardly or never used until a few years ago.

Secondly, you have no idea about the history of the term anti-Semitism.

And how do you know that?

Thirdly, Muslim simply means someone who subscribes to the Islamic religion (plus those citizens of many Islamic dominated countries who are not legally entitled to alter their religion); Judaism has cultural and ethnic meanings as well as the religious.

Sorry to break the news, but "Islam" and "Muslim" are also terms that carry cultural and ethnic significance as well as religious.

Why don't you tell us why you think there is a deep reservoir of anger against the west.

That's a very long story which would take us far off the subject of these cartoons. What's most relevant here is that there certainly is such a reservoir (have you ever been to the middle east? I've lived there), there are many historical reasons for its existence, and there are many unhappy people in dire economic and social conditions. Because of that, what would otherwise be minor provocations became explosive.

What I find sickening is this holier-than-thou nonsense so many people in the west subscribe to (including many of the posters here). You don't publish cartoons like that for the same reason you don't publish cartoons mocking Jews, or blacks in America, or the poor. It's in bad taste and it makes people angry - and it's not funny.