Cartoons Cause Outrage- Again

[LazyGun]

A mini- storm has erupted, yet again, over a cartoon. This time it is an innocuous Jesus and Mo cartoon, worn on the T-shirts of 2 atheist studio guests debating religion on a BBC TV show. The BBC chose to censor the image of the T-shirts by pixillating them. Maajid Nawaz, also a guest on the show, an one-time islamic fundamentalist radical and now head of the Quilliam Foundation, was prompted to tweet that the image was innocuous and that God was greater than the outrage prompted by the image itself.

Cue hysterical muslim outrage, death threats - and a petition, organised by a muslim LibDem activist, to bar Nawaz from being the Lib-Dem PPC for Hampstead, which has, apparently, garnered 20,000 signatures, all presumably from outraged and offended UK muslims.

Then C4 get in the act, this time censoring the image of mohammed during their transmission.

Should we really be deferring to nonsensical religious sensibilities this way, by pro-actively censoring innocuous imagery that "might" cause offence to some?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/29/in-the-u-k-channel-4-news-program-covers-up-a-jesus-and-mo-drawing-with-a-black-blob-to-avoid-giving-offense/

For myself, I am irritated at the BBC and C4 for the self-censorship, and irritated at these activists lobbying against Nawaz.

[mibn2cweus]

If one truly believes in and seeks to defend another's alleged 'god given right and duty' to violently impose the sanctity of their arbitrary beliefs upon others, why not save them the trouble by shooting yourself in the foot.

Oh wait . . . you already have.

[naomi24]

Frankly this fiasco illustrates the level of control fundamentalist Islam attempts – and expects - to exert over the rest of us. Democracy doesn’t figure in its agenda.

[Khandro]

naomi; either you are not reading the posts or we are not speaking the same language. At 13:12 yesterday I wrote; //LG; I am in no way, shape or form condoning death threats. I'm talking solely of people being offended by people doing so for their own gratification. The irony is that Nawaz is being attacked by the lowest of the 'Muslim' pondlife for saying he is NOT offended.//

[naomi24]

Khandro, he's being attacked not only by the maniacs who are threatening to kill him, but by everyone who signed that petition.

[jomifl]

I don't think there is any requirement in the holy book of islam for it's devotees to be offended by images of mohammed. They are offended because they want to be offended, it is a personal issue outside the scope of their claimed belief and has no more significance than the views of any other person. They cannot claim any islamic authority for their views as it doesn't exist. Of course we mustn't fall for the idea that any religious work has any authority since there are so many with so many conflcting views that they must inevitably cancel out.

[Khandro]

jom; I re-post from mine of 23:47 Wed. //The Quran does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental teachings) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating visual depictions of figures.
Most Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of all the prophets of Islam should be prohibited and are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad. The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry. In Shia Islam, however, images of Muhammad are quite common nowadays, even though Shia scholars historically were against such depictions. Many Muslims who take a stricter view of the supplemental traditions will sometimes challenge any depiction of Muhammad, including those created and published by non-Muslims.//
The concept that images can encourage idolatry has a long and dignified history, - images of the Buddha and of Christ were originaly forbidden.
The point I have tried to make over and over again, is that if something offends, why not leave it alone?

[mibn2cweus]

The response of the committed denier to having been exposed to their own reflection is to smash the mirror. Banning the production of mirrors does nothing to make them any less a denier of their own ugly truth.

[naomi24]

Khandro, //if something offends, why not leave it alone?//

Does that apply across the board? The burka offends me.

// images of the Buddha and of Christ were originaly forbidden.//

By whom?

[Hypognosis]

Wasn't proscription of 'Graven images' one of the ten commandments?

It was the one which most puzzled me, when I was a kid. Over the years, I've thought up all manner of reasons why it might be deleterious to indulge in such things.

For instance: The Israelites were a tribe on the move, at the time and having a single object of veneration (gold, especially) which could get stolen by raiders would provoke abject despair and chaos, in an environment where calm and order was necessary for day to day survival.

Also, we all know people are duplicitious. It's possible to be goody two shoes in front of the idol (or boss) and then slope of and be an evil sh*ster to all and sundry once you're out of the temple. Therefore, it's necessary to do away with a physical object and make out that god is omnipresent and omniscient.

"What's bad about idolatry?" would make a great thread title but this one is as good as any, since it revolves around the issue of imagery.

[Khandro]

Apologies! the last line of the above post is badly phrased; "if something offends, why not leave it alone?" I missed out the word 'someone'. It should read; if something offends someone, why not leave it alone? in other words, why go out of your way to hurt someone?
naomi; I agree about the Burka and it has been covered (no pun intended) exhaustively on other threads, and is a different issue.
For early images of Jesus; see Hypo above. "By whom" regarding the Buddha, well by Buddhists themselves, and for the similar reasons viz. they didn't want IMAGES to be worshipped because they might detract from the Dharma (the teaching) so he was not to be depicted, but early artists made images that alluded to him such as a footprint, or a wheel - which represented the teaching, (both these images are still in use).
Some Hellenistic sculptors, part of Alexander's army when he moved into India, converted to Buddhism and had no scruples about making images of Shakyamuni the historical Buddha, and that is why the early sculptures have a distinctly Greek look in the folds of drapery and facial features.

[jomifl]

Khandro, as the only available 'expert' on islam available on AB at present could you clarify what an 'hadith' is? It cannot be the 'word of god' since if it was it would be incorporated in the koran. It must therefore be supplementary stuff tacked on by 'scholars' to patch up holes in the koran. Could it be comparable to catholic dogma which is invented up to make a more complete story, like my favourites the assumption of Mary and her immaculate conception which made her free of original sin.
You can see where this is going?

[beso]

khandro //if something offends someone, why not leave it alone? in other words, why go out of your way to hurt someone? //

So the religious should stop hurting people by treating women, children and homosexuals as inferior.

Why don't they leave it alone?

Should we stop pointing out the unsavoury truth about Neo-Nazis because it hurts them to hear us criticise them?

Should women and their supports during the seventies have just shut up and stopped hurting sexist men by telling them their prejudices were unacceptable?

People need to be told when their behaviour is unacceptable. If they want to counter claim against atheists thn by all means go ahead but expect debate and have intelligent arguments to back their position.

Unfortunately the religious don't have intelligent positions. Few claims are quite as ridiculous as those backed simply by "God said in the Bible." It fact is a profoundly inane position that does not deserve the slightest respect. Those who use it need to be told they are talking rubbish and I won't apologise for doing so.

[jomifl]

@ Beso, absolutely !

[Khandro]

Beso, A bit of a rant, but I hear and agree with what you say, these issues are discussed on a daily basis and are covered by our own civil laws, - but what has that got to do with the cartoons?

[jomifl]

It's in the text Khandro..

[Hypognosis]

@birdy

Great replies. Thanks