GameBanshee Forums

fable wrote:We don't have his word against the newpaper, since the newspaper hasn't denied what he said. An email is easily fabricated, but the newspaper hasn't contradicted Zieler. I'd have to conclude from that, that they agree with his statements.

You have a point, the papers didn't contradict him, they simply stated that it's another issue entirely. Which prove my point that the editor who send it is idiot, since he could reject it on dozen different reasons.

Oh, big newspapers will definitely publish unsolicited manuscripts from well-known figures. It's simply called freelancing. I've done it, both successfully and unsuccessfully, and I've hardly got an intenational reputation. If it gets rejected, you sent your pieces somewhere else. If it gets accepted, you've made a new market for yourself. It helps, as in Zieler's case, to have an already established name, but really, almost anybody can do this. The important thing is to make sure you follow the newspaper's editorial submissions guidelines, and I've yet to encounter a major newspaper that didn't have these.

I stand corrected.

[QUOTE=Fljotsdale]But, unless the ownership or editorial team has completely changed, it IS hypocrisy. You can't say something is bad in one breath and perfectly justified in the next.
<snip>
[/quote]
You can if the incidents aren't about the same issue.

[quote="Fljotsdale]
Context. Yes. In this case we had a situation in which"]
No doubt the question about whether they should print them or not is vauge. It is an entierly differnet question from what we are debating.
The question and one of the reasons they were posted, was - should non-belivers of (any) religion be subject to the taboos of said religon?
Ei: should the danish press/authors et al, be submissive to Islam taboos?
And if you have the extreemists and terrorists dictate the agendas - they have already "won", and even irregardless, you can be sure there would still have been unrest amongst thoese factions. There have been for years. These people don't need more justification to strap on bombs and go blowing up civilians, they already have what they need, so stepping on eggshells in that regard is pointless.

[quote="Fljotsdale]
You might say that it shows we take freedom os speech seriously"]
Yes, no doubt. However, the cartoons are out there, printed by a privately owned buisness in a country with freedom of press. So how it is dealt with says much more then thousands anecdotes about how they could have done instead of printing them. Hindsight is 20/20.
Besides - postitive things are emerging from this in Denmark as well, where moderate Muslims have started to claim a voice for themselves instead of only letting the shouting extreemists "talk".

[quote="Fljotsdale]
Two years ago is recent. I still think Jews are hypocritical about genocide"]
Many jews are also very religous, and thus such things are a part of their culture. Most danes are not religious and thus 2-3 years is a long time for some cartoons which have no influence on their lives. Can not be compared.

[quote="Fljotsdale]
Yes"]
Not really, because the minority of danes are faithfull christians. Most don't support (directly) nor care about religon as long as it is kept within the personal lifes sphere.
Christianity is just an easy target, because of "our" national relationship to it, where Islam now is starting to make more of an impact and visible, that topic is starting to be satired as well.

[QUOTE=Xandax] You can if the incidents aren't about the same issue.[/quote]

Yes it is! :speech: Both are about cartoons satirising a specific (if different)relgion. So WHY is it a different issue? Explain, please.


[QUOTE=Xandax]No doubt the question about whether they should print them or not is vauge. It is an entierly differnet question from what we are debating. [/quote]

What's 'vague' about it? How is it a different question? It is a relevant part of this issue, imo, since the whole debate is whether or not the cartoons should have been published, for whatever reason.

[QUOTE=Xandax]The question and one of the reasons they were posted, was - should non-belivers of (any) religion be subject to the taboos of said religon?[/quote]

And the answer to that is : NO! Of course not!
BUT, just as the paper refused to print cartoons offensive to Christian belief (in a country you claim is largely atheist), so it should have refused to print cartoons offensive to Muslim belief.
To allow the one but not the other IS hypocrisy, twist it how you will.

[QUOTE=Xandax]IE: should the danish press/authors et al, be submissive to Islam taboos?[/quote]

NO! No one should be, any more than we should be submissive to the taboos of ANY religion.
But the fact is, that the Danish newspaper was submissive to the taboos of Christianity, but not to the taboos of Islam. That is the bottom line. That is the hypocrisy.

[QUOTE=Xandax]And if you have the extreemists and terrorists dictate the agendas - they have already "won", [/quote]

I agree. But we should at least be consistent!

[QUOTE=Xandax]and even regardless, you can be sure there would still have been unrest amongst thoese factions. There have been for years. These people don't need more justification to strap on bombs and go blowing up civilians, they already have what they need, so stepping on eggshells in that regard is pointless.[/quote]

'Stepping on eggshells' and flapping a red rag in the face of a bull are two totally different things, LOL!

[QUOTE=Xandax]Yes, no doubt. However, the cartoons are out there, printed by a privately owned buisness in a country with freedom of press. So how it is dealt with says much more then thousands anecdotes about how they could have done instead of printing them. Hindsight is 20/20.[/quote]

True.

[QUOTE=Xandax]Besides - postitive things are emerging from this in Denmark as well, where moderate Muslims have started to claim a voice for themselves instead of only letting the shouting extremists "talk".[/quote]

Here in the UK, too.

[QUOTE=Xandax]Many jews are also very religous, and thus such things are a part of their culture. Most danes are not religious and thus 2-3 years is a long time for some cartoons which have no influence on their lives. Can not be compared. [/quote]

The UK was largely non-religious, too, until so many Muslims settled here. We are now getting a slow resurgence of Christianity to counteract Islamic influence. Which is both a great pity and a great danger, since it will undoubtedly cause conflict.
I HATE religion.

[QUOTE=Xandax]Not really, because the minority of danes are faithful christians. Most don't support (directly) nor care about religon as long as it is kept within the personal lifes sphere. [/quote]

That was the attitude here as well, but it is changing.
[QUOTE=Xandax]
Christianity is just an easy target, because of "our" national relationship to it, where Islam now is starting to make more of an impact and visible, that topic is starting to be satired as well.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, well, we are not afraid of Christian backlash are we? Fanatical Muslim terrorists are making us afraid of Isalmic backlash.

12 moslem men tried to catch one of the cartoon artists daughter.... They were looking for the little girl in her school... Luckily enough they didnt catch her...

In swedish --> [url="http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,786782,00.html"]http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,786782,00.html[/url]

Sounds like a ghost story to me...like the boogey man or something...

If this is really true though then its sad...

Not enough time to read everything and I am pretty sure fable and aegis have said all the real heavy topic point stuff so I just want to ask a question.

From what I've heard this newspaper is the equilavent if not likeness to an Avangelist type show in america. And it is a business.

If I ever start a paper I want to be able to print whatever the hell I want until my government tells me no. If my government doesn't then I dont feel I've done anyhting wrong.

Also another question... don't these countries (denmark, sweden etc) donate a lot of funds etc to muslim countries?

My problem is I am not atheist or agnostic... its that I have a general distaste for all this religous. Every major religion just gets its turn to murder and kill in the name of something non existant.

Bah.

[QUOTE=RandomThug]
My problem is I am not atheist or agnostic... its that I have a general distaste for all this religous. Every major religion just gets its turn to murder and kill in the name of something non existant.

Bah.[/QUOTE]

Yup. We should ban the lot of 'em.

[QUOTE=Karembeu]12 moslem men tried to catch one of the cartoon artists daughter.... They were looking for the little girl in her school... Luckily enough they didnt catch her...

In swedish --> [url="http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,786782,00.html"]http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,786782,00.html[/url]

Sounds like a ghost story to me...like the boogey man or something...

If this is really true though then its sad...[/QUOTE]

That was as far as have been up in danish medias a red herring. It didn't happen.

[QUOTE=RandomThug]<snip>
Also another question... don't these countries (denmark, sweden etc) donate a lot of funds etc to muslim countries?
<snip>[/QUOTE]

Denmark donates much money to amongst other things, muslim countries, and have multiple projects in many of the (developing) muslim countries to help build social aid facilities.
Problem is that many of these organisations can no longer function in the affected areas, because of threats towards them, punishing the people in thoese areas who need aid even more, and also due to the shifting towards right of a number of people in Denmark due to the events - I fear such aid-initiatives will further diminish. Understandable in my view, unfortunate, but understandable.

[QUOTE=Karembeu]12 moslem men tried to catch one of the cartoon artists daughter.... They were looking for the little girl in her school... Luckily enough they didnt catch her...

In swedish --> [url="http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,786782,00.html"]http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,786782,00.html[/url]

Sounds like a ghost story to me...like the boogey man or something...

If this is really true though then its sad...[/QUOTE]

As Xandax mentioned it did not happen, in fact a lot of talk say it was 7-8 10 to 11 year old girls who did it, quite a difference here i should say..

Sorry to bring this back up to the forefront.

Anyway, I can't possibly sift through 12 pages of past posts, but did anyone point out the notion that it's blasphemous for Muhammad to be portrayed in any way? It's not just that the cartoons portrayed Muhammad as a terrorist, but the fact that he was drawn at all.

The only reason I'm bringing it up is because I'm reading Salman Rushdie. We had to read Satanic Verses for my 20th Century British Literature class, and we got some background info on Rushdie. Well, I'll try to make this brief, but in Satanic Verses, we get Muhammad getting "false" verses from the archangel Gibreel. The book was published in 1988, and due to its "irreverent depiction of the prophe Muhammad," it royally pissed off a lot of people. The book was banned in a lot of countries, and Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa, in which he called for the execution of Rushdie and "the publishers who were aware of its concepts." Several translators who worked to translate the book into other languages were killed, Rushdie's Norwegian publisher William Nygaard was nearly killed in an attack... To this day, Rushdie lives under the auspices of the British secret service, because the call for his death has not--and apparently will never--be withdrawn. Rushdie, in 1990, pubilshed the essay In Good Faith where he apologized for his insult; the Iranians still didn't retract the fatwa. Anyway, the reason I started this reply was because Muslims hold the Koran in a lot more regard than even Christians do the Bible (we had a lengthy discussion on this in my class; it was necessary to understand Satanic Verses, as well as the whole controversy). The very notion that Muhammad was told false information which was then put in the Koran really honked off the Muslim world.

If you think what's happened so far was bad, it's likely to only get worse. And now we have South Park doing something on the whole debacle. One wonders what they're up to. I doubt they'll depict Muhammad in any way, but you never know. They usually just poke fun at people's beliefs or actions (like the notion of people doing the proverbial "bury your head in the sand to wait out the problem"), but I don't think they've ever gone to an extreme level like that.

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]Anyway, I can't possibly sift through 12 pages of past posts, but did anyone point out the notion that it's blasphemous for Muhammad to be portrayed in any way? It's not just that the cartoons portrayed Muhammad as a terrorist, but the fact that he was drawn at all.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it was one of the first things raised.

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]If you think what's happened so far was bad, it's likely to only get worse. And now we have South Park doing something on the whole debacle. One wonders what they're up to. I doubt they'll depict Muhammad in any way, but you never know. They usually just poke fun at people's beliefs or actions (like the notion of people doing the proverbial "bury your head in the sand to wait out the problem"), but I don't think they've ever gone to an extreme level like that.[/QUOTE]

They aren't the first ones... [url="http://www.chaser.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2998&Itemid=26"]This site[/url], Chaser, writes satircal stuff... this is no exception.

[QUOTE=dj_venom]Yes, it was one of the first things raised.[/QUOTE]And it is in fact, as I tried to show to Fas, wrong. Mohammed has been portrayed in some islamic art, notably in Persia. And the interdiction of protraying the Prophet is not a general thing (though it is prevalent). There is a fairly long discussion about it involving Xandax, Fas (CM) & me earlier in this thread. With the right search terms you should be able to dig it out.