si-maro wrote:I completely agree. I'm wondering if anyone will defend the Muslim* stance here or not.
*I mean, the Muslim people who are taking a stance against the cartoons, specifically. Not just any old tom, dick, or mohammed who happens to be Muslim.
well--how would the US media/public react to a caricature of Jesus with a machine-gun, shooting up "infidel Iraqi's" as a joke on GWB's "God bless us all" stance?
how would the UK media/public react to an inverted Cross in the newspapers "editorial cartoons" section where the Union Jack was?
how would it look to see the Torah underneath Sharon's ass, in caricature, to allow him to see over his car's dashboard--which is leaking oil?
you may think it's bullshit, but these people are genuinely offended because of Islam's "No Graven Images" stance. The ten commandments has a similar tenet, which is followed figuratively as opposed to literally.
It could be argued that the christian movement allows Jesus to be portrayed "gravenly" because how else were they going to trick everyone into thinking Jesus was white? It may not be cut and dry like that, but I think you get my point.
Religious iconography (or the lack thereof) elicits a very strong response in people, and I can empathize with it. I don't think it's an unreasonable request, (especially considering how many unreasonable things Muslims in the world expect, given the way some of our most visible trangressors have behaved) and should be OK.
Gary Larson commented once that he had to make sure that all depictions of God were favorable when he tackled the subject in
the Far Side. He mentioned in the comic strip where God was whaling on this guy in Jeopardy, and he (paraphrased)"had to make sure that the human competing against God had scored nothing, because if he had beaten God to the buzzer even once, people would have gotten mad."
It's no difference. regardless of the situation, the newspapers fucked up by printing it.
