Why I Published Those Cartoons

[mikkey 0]

An interesting read.

http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3566642/

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[crozby 0]

Quote

Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.

I think this sums it all up quite nicely.

[dropoutdave 0]

Quote

Quote

Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.

I think this sums it all up quite nicely.

Can't argue with that.

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Can't argue with that.

I can

specifically this part:

Quote

But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission.

Doesn't this happen in pretty much all countries though? Canada and the US are founded on Christian principles, with christian based mores to guide society. As a non-believer, or different believer am I not forced to submit to that?

(Now, I agree with him in light of what happened in specific to the issue of the cartoons. But I think the sentence in general is just to easy.)

[dropoutdave 0]

Quote

In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase

I wasn't aware of that. Funny the kinds of people a predominantly Christian country will do business with isn't it.

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

[ernokaikkonen 0]

Quote

Doesn't this happen in pretty much all countries though? Canada and the US are founded on Christian principles, with christian based mores to guide society. As a non-believer, or different believer am I not forced to submit to that?

(Now, I agree with him in light of what happened in specific to the issue of the cartoons. But I think the sentence in general is just to easy.)

Can you mention an example of such a taboo? A taboo that would be imposed on my atheist self by the christian society?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

polygamy, nudity, gay marriage just to name a few.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Canada and the US are founded on Christian principles, with christian based mores to guide society.

I do not know about Canada, but America was not founded on christian principles. The majority of the founding fathers were not even christian and rejected christianity but embraced Deism. To hear the christians tell it, we are a christian nation. Not so. It appears that way only because they are so out spoken and try to inject their unfounded belief into every aspect of our lives. Even the guy they call president believes that god is working through him. What a nutcase. One look at how the US conducts itself and it is appearant that they use christianity only to justify its actions. I personally reject christianity on the fact that is unfounded hogwash and its history is one of the most violent of all religions.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Richards 0]

Quote

Doesn't this happen in pretty much all countries though? Canada and the US are founded on Christian principles, with christian based mores to guide society. As a non-believer, or different believer am I not forced to submit to that?

Not at all. Christianity and Catholicism oppose abortion yet our laws allow it. The Catholic Church opposes birth control and divorce yet they are not allowed to dictate that to our democratic society.

On Southpark they mock Jesus regularly, and while the church is offended, they were not able to censor it.

Nobody was censored or sentenced when Maddona masturbated with a crucifix in one of her videos. Many people were highly offended at the tastlesness of it but again freedom of expression was allowed to reign.

While our founding principles were based on the religious beleifs of our first settlers I think you would be hard pressed to show evidence of people being forced to submit to religious demands.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Nobody was censored or sentenced when Maddona masturbated with a crucifix in one of her videos. Many people were highly offended at the tastlesness of it but again freedom of expression was allowed to reign.

In Canada she was.

Quote

While our founding principles were based on the religious beleifs of our first settlers I think you would be hard pressed to show evidence of people being forced to submit to religious demands.

Gay marriage, polygamy.

[Richards 0]

Oh my God. I literally finished posting this and went back to the forum to check my post (1 second later) and already you responded. You are on the ball!

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[wmw999 2,534]

The US has a lot of Christian assumptions in it. To the devout, it probably doesn't look that way. But to the non-Christian, particularly someone who didn't grow up in another Christian country, I'm sure it does.

We celebrate Christmas pretty universally. Sunday is our day of rest, and stores close early or don't open. There are Bibles in every motel room in the country. You can't get married to two women or men, or to someone of the same gender.

Every grocery store (well, at least in Texas) has a Christian bookshelf.

Everyone that you talk to knows religious references -- "loaves and fishes" "water into wine" will always be understood. Desecrating the cross, while not illegal, is frowned on.

Drugstores are allowed to refuse to serve people based on religious principles.

It's pervasive and universal. The fact that all of the rules aren't dictated by some single group's interpretation of the Bible doesn't mean that there isn't a strong presumption of the understanding of and identification with Christian symbols and customs.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Richards 0]

Hi again,

You have raised fair arguments that religion does stick it's nose into politics, however in our society there is at least the willingness to acknowledge that the church's power needs to be mitigated.

With respect to gay marriage the church was not against the concept of civil unions, they merely felt that the term "marriage" held specific religious connotations. For example I do not imagine we could just hold any old party and call it a bar-mitzvah without having the local rabbi raise a few objections. For the record I did not agree with the ban on gay marriage as I do not believe in dictating to someone as to how they may seek happiness in a partner. In Canada we do actually allow gay marriage.

With respect to polygamy, I think our society is more concerned about the issue of respect for a womens value. If men are allowed multiple wives then a wife is no longer the soulmate for a man but merely one of his many sex objects/breeders. I realize that I have not considered all factors in this argument and it is a hot button issue however I think the opposition is more societal than religious.

To sum up; Yes we still have a way to go in the west with respect to separating church from state but we are at least aware of that and are always willing to question our values so as to move forwrd progressively. The people screaming to censor are asking us to take huge steps backwards.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

With respect to polygamy, I think our society is more concerned about the issue of respect for a womens value. If men are allowed multiple wives then a wife is no longer the soulmate for a man but merely one of his many sex objects/breeders. I realize that I have not considered all factors in this argument and it is a hot button issue however I think the opposition is more societal than religious.

Frist, polygamy doesn't mean one man, multiple women. It can take on many forms. (and there are all different distinctions and terms I have more or less lumped together for ease of argument)

Second, I agree that the concept of religeous wills being dictated to society is less of an issue here as opposed to Iran. However, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Which was my original point, as a blanket statement it is to easy to say, since it hapens in almost all countries to a certain degree.

[ernokaikkonen 0]

Quote

polygamy

I'll give you that one.

Quote

nudity

This is not an exclusively christian taboo. People tend to wear clothes in most parts of the world regardless of their religion.

Quote

gay marriage

Seeing as marriage is a christian term*), christians can do whatever they please with marriage. "Registration of a relationship"("secular marriage", if you insist) is possible for straight and gay couples in many parts of the world these days. Hardly a taboo. If a christian church says that there isn't and can not be such a thing as "gay marriage"... well, it's their religion, they can keep it.

*) Marriage, as in in a church, with a priest, in front of this congregation and all that. I don't want to get into semantics about this(unless someone really wants me to), but if there is a possibility for a straight couple to get a married by a civil servant, and a similar possibility for a gay couple to "get their relationship officially registered" it's more or less all the same to me. As long as the legal benefits are the same.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I'll give you that one.

Which proves my original point....

Quote

Seeing as marriage is a christian term*), christians can do whatever they please with marriage. "Registration of a relationship"("secular marriage", if you insist) is possible for straight and gay couples in many parts of the world these days. Hardly a taboo. If a christian church says that there isn't and can not be such a thing as "gay marriage"... well, it's their religion, they can keep it.

true, though I was talking about the US and Canada in this particular case. Though, even atheist in a civil marriage would still call themselves married. They wouldn't call it any different.

[Richards 0]

Quote

The US has a lot of Christian assumptions in it. To the devout, it probably doesn't look that way. But to the non-Christian, particularly someone who didn't grow up in another Christian country, I'm sure it does.

I will try my best to answer to this but there will be innacuracies as I can only speak for Canada which I suspect cannot be that different from the US (several of my cousins are American and seem to be very similar to me).

Quote

We celebrate Christmas pretty universally. Sunday is our day of rest, and stores close early or don't open.

The fact that the majority of our forefathers were of Christian descent would naturally result in many of our cultural norms being closely alligned with religion, however we do not force anyone to partake in Christmas, nor do we stop others from celebrating their holidays. The fact that we have greater public acknowledgement of these holidays is hardly hedgemonious. It has been ingrained into our culture and even most non-religious types still celebrate Christmas as a family holiday. I do not feel that we should feel guilty about this. No country outside of North America has ever felt the need to apologise for public celebrations of holidays that are part of their heritage. I know it is impossible to say what I just said without coming across as a redneck but I do not feel that failure to erase our culture equates to religious domination

Quote

There are Bibles in every motel room in the country. ***


Ok in fairness we should allow some more diverse religious material into hotels

You can't get married to two women or men, or to someone of the same gender.

Quote

Polygamy becomes a womens rights issue and it is a real can of worms as there are two opposing groups (womens rights groups & groups who advocate polygamist rights). so it is an issue I am not sure I have an answer for. With respect to gay marriage, I do support the rights of gays to marry and in Canada it is legal.

Every grocery store (well, at least in Texas) has a Christian bookshelf.

Quote

Supply and demand, introductory micro-economics.

Everyone that you talk to knows religious references -- "loaves and fishes" "water into wine" will always be understood. Desecrating the cross, while not illegal, is frowned on.

Quote

Naturally a society whose forefathers are christian would know most common terms but again this is not equivalent to demanding submission to that religion. With respect to desecrating a cross not being illegal but still being frowned upon you have made my point exactly. We get upset but do not demand legal consequense (or blood). I fully appreciate that muslims would find the comics tasteless and I support their religious right to refuse to patronise newspapers or establishments that offend them. My objection is to them demanding legal action. It would be perfectly acceptable for muslims (and non-muslims) simply to say we won't read the paper and allow the paper to realise that they have turned away readers. Public opinion can do a lot to change behaviour as most people oppose blatant discrimination but again we do not need journalists going to prison.

Drugstores are allowed to refuse to serve people based on religious principles.

Quote

OK, I was caught off gaurd by that one. I have never heard of such a thing so I may need you to elaborate. Please let me know what that is all about as I am reluctant to fire from the hip without knowing the issue.

It's pervasive and universal. The fact that all of the rules aren't dictated by some single group's interpretation of the Bible doesn't mean that there isn't a strong presumption of the understanding of and identification with Christian symbols and customs.***

Fair enough but again we are progressive and constantly willing to challenge the churches role in politics, even if we still have progress to make. Sentencing journalists is a step backwards

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[ernokaikkonen 0]

But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission.

Right. I'll try again. Back on track.

No believer can force me to observe his taboos in the public domain, apart from those taboos defined in the law. The editors of the Danish newspaper did not break any laws, but the muslims still demand that no pictures of Mohammed are published(or even made, I suppose).

Any believer can expect me*) to observe his taboos in the public domain, as long as there is a law that requires me to do so.

Any believer may ask me to observe his taboos in the public domain, and if such a request is reasonable, I'm likely to agree. Burning down embassies wont help his case.

(edit to add:)

Quote

Canada and the US are founded on Christian principles, with christian based mores to guide society. As a non-believer, or different believer am I not forced to submit to that?

You are forced to submit to the local laws, not religious taboos. The laws and taboos may overlap, but it's the law that you're forced to submit to. What happened in Denmark was quite legal in that country.

--

*)"Me" here refers to some fictional entity. No conclusions of my law-abidingness should be made from the above statement.

[seedy 0]

Quote

Quote
There are Bibles in every motel room in the country.
Quote


Ok in fairness we should allow some more diverse religious material into hotels

The government has nothing to do with this. A group called the Gideons place most of the Bibles with the owners permission. The owner of the motel can decide what he will allow in the room. I have been in motels that have both a Bible and Koran.

I intend to live forever -- so far, so good.

[billvon 3,070]

>But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his
> taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for
> my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.

So if a woman bares her breasts in public because she believes that clothing is dishonest, arresting her is incompatible with a secular democracy? If a cartoonist in the US draws an explicit comic of a man having sex with a goat, and they refuse to publish it, is that incompatible with democracy? Is that asking for society's submission?

Every culture has its own taboos; some of them codified into law. The problem here is not that the cartoonist broke some taboos - if he did, then by all means boycott the paper or whatever. The problem is not that he broke a law - if he did, arrest him (or the publisher or whoever.) The problem is that their _reaction_ was unreasonable. Had all the Muslims of the world boycotted the paper (or even had the cartoonist arrested and tried under local laws) I would have had no problems with their actions. Instead a bunch of extremists started rioting - and THAT'S the problem.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Frist, polygamy doesn't mean one man, multiple women. It can take on many forms.

While that may be possible and there may be outliers I suspect that most polygamist relationships do fit into the one man multiple wifes mold.Could you perhaps provide some data on the proportion of polygamist marriages that are not one man multiple women?

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[ernokaikkonen 0]

I wasn't expecting to, but I actually found some statistics. From Wikipedia:

Polygamy worldwide

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook derived from George P. Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas recorded the marital composition of 1231 societies, from 1960-1980. Of these societies, 186 societies were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

polygamy, nudity, gay marriage just to name a few.

How about bestiality. Shoudn't people have the freedom to marry sheep?

[billvon 3,070]

>Shoudn't people have the freedom to marry sheep?

Only if they can read the vows without baaaing . . .

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Shoudn't people have the freedom to marry sheep?

Only if they can read the vows without baaaing . . .

Uhhhggg........Don't quit your day job.