So the picture's been spread around on the internet and in the newspaper of the prophet Mohammed... yes, you know the one. The one where Mohammed is wearing a bomb hat. The one that started all this... ugliness. First question: what's your take?

But here's what I'm really wondering about... South Park. As many American viewers know (can't say the same for sure about the Brits, sorry) South Park recently ran two shows about the prophet Mohammed. They did not show him after all. Still, I am curious - why not? I'd like to think that it is a joke, that Comedy Central would allow it, but Trey and Matt, for irony's sake decided to self-censor Mohammed out of the show, but I can't swear to that.

I honestly believe, however, that we need to if anything start showing more pictures of Mohammed. Show that freedom of speech is that important, and not to give in to the threats. After all, the Middle East can only attack so many targets before they burn themselves out, yeah?

Still, I wonder... why is it that a Danish newspaper sparked the controversy when the Super Best Friends episode of South Park showed Mohammed as a cheesy two-bit super hero? South Park obviously has the larger audience...

Anyway, your thoughts?

Mostly because many muslim countries didn't really see south park, and because Newpapers are a much more respected media than television. It's the difference between being insulted in a cheesy tabloid, and the NY Times.

Courtesy of B3ta...



Personally I think it is a huge over-reaction. The anger over it was incredibly dispreportionate.

The cartoonist satired the image of the Prophet Mohammad to show that Islam (in their eyes) was a brutal religion. So what do (albeit a vocal minority) hundreds perhaps thousands of muslim protesters do? They burn a load of embassies and threaten to kill all the Danes they can find. And Norwegians. And Swedes. And the Dutch.

I have no idea why those other countries were targetted for revenge too. It sort of shows it for the stupidity that it is.

One of their great arguments was that "You Christians wouldn't disrespect Jesus in such a way." That showed a rather large dose of ignorance. All throughout the west people are free to criticise whatever religions they feel like. You only have to watch a few episode of Blackadder to see that...

Were any muslims forced to see these cartoons? Did the cartoonists go into mosques and paint it on walls? No. They were published in a newspaper that you had to pay to get access to. They were there to vent frustration at percieved brutality, and the reaction proved their point.

A part of me wants to say "They should have been more considerate to the feelings of fundamentalist muslims." But only a handful flipped out over this... and why should they anyway? Call a spade a spade.

When every day you have publications in the muslim world denouncing the holocaust, espousing violence against 'the west', and a whole host of things that *we* find deeply offensive, what right do they have to get upset over this?

Religion gives everyone an excuse to act like an arse. I just hope that the muslim world will soon have a liberal revolution like Europe did in the 1800's. Just with less bloodshed.

That's enough ranting for now I think. Time for my pills.

Oooohhhhhh I put Jedi as my religion on the 2001 census, ooohhhhhhh you are so in trouble now, you and the infidels at B3TA. I call a jedihad down on you and your family.

but seriously (and a little hypcritically), All that is needed is a little mutual respect. No, religion should not be above questioning, reproach or discussion or we find ourselves in a dictatorship directed by religion (of the dominant local faith) but at the same time a little sensitivity needs to be used when dealing with a subject as explosive as religion can be. From the other point of view, religion needs to understand that despite any doctrine or dogma that may state that non followers will end up in a burning nasty place reserved for those without belief or honour etc. that this is a choice, that the deity in question understands that such a place is needed and has created/allowed to be created such a place because people will choose not to follow them. If the deity in question understands this why can't the followers? Can they not understand that this is matter for each individual to take up withe the deity in question upon their death. This is a little long winded so i'll give you an example.

Henry, a life long budhist and pacifist to the extreme finds his homeland overtaken by a cruel dictator, In protest he and his friends set themselves alight, much as budhists did during the vietnam war. Henry dies.
Olaf, one of Henry's friends, does not follow the teachings of Budha but the teachings of Odin, It is his undersatnding that to die by your own hand will mean that you will end up in Niffelheim standing in line as one of the unworthy dead awaiting the battle of Ragnarock and means that you will fight on the side of Loki the evil trickster god. However to die by an open wound with a weapon in your hand will get you into Valhalla where you may feast and drink until ragnarok and then fight on the side of Odin, Thor and the other gods of the Aesir and Vanir.
Olaf chooses not to disuade his friend from his own point of view as he understands that we each have to follow what we believe to be right and will take it up with whomever we meet in the afterlife anyway. It is also his understanding that Odin has got it in hand and its not his problem. So Olaf goes off to war with a sword in his hand a clear concience.
Henry completes his protest thinking that Olaf will be reincarnated as a lesser being due to his murdereous ways but that this his fate for this cycle of his life and that by going through this process he will learn, that this is the nature of things and therefore goes off to with a clear concience as well.

Yeah, I think Bryden has it down.

Of course there are overreactions. And I'm not justifying them, but let's put two and two together here. We have a bunch of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims involved with terrorism as a current threat. In their religion, making a likeness of Mohammed is extremely taboo. They printed these cartoons once - and then they reprinted them. We're just aggravating them more. Is that really necessary? Can't we be a *little* bit more wary when we know it's going to spark them up? I'm not saying we should censor, but I like the idea of mutual respect, and also the fact that the cartoons just seemed to feed the fire.

An overreaction over nothing come on they do it to the west as well if they don't like it they should stop doing it as well. Get a grip of the real world what is the matter with these people as soon as they see any thing bad they riot. You expect that sort of thing in the Middle East but not here in the west.

Football hooligans anyone?

I saw the one South Park episode where they were going to show Mahammed in Family Guy (a horribly drawn version of family guy) and it made completely NO sense. Why was everyone running around town at like midnight, going to the school gym, and forbidding the kids from watching Family Guy...? But yeah, Mohammed was censored in that one.

It's called satire, Devils_daughter, political and social satire.

Chief... what the hell are you talking about?

Anyway, I've been mulling it over in my head, and I think that the Middle East could really use a healthy dose of atheism and agnosticism. When that comes, I think that the Muslim Reformation and Renaissance and then we can coincide at least a little more peacefully.

Yarr, but it could be eqally as dangerous. When it happened in Europe the sub-continent was ripped asunder by conflict. The repurcussions of it set Europe up for over a century and a half of misery and genocide before things finally settled down. The World Wars and the rise of Stalinism can be traced back to this.

I don't think any power-player in the world wants to see something like that happen in the Middle East, especially when the worlds oil comes from there. Almajheenajad (sp?) could be the least of our problems. It's one of the main reasons why so many democracies prop up brutal regimes there. In the long run it would be better if they followed in our footsteps (at least our better ones), but no one wants to risk their short term agendas. And no one in the area in question wants to loose their own strongholds.

There is no magic pill to enlightenment, no matter what the Matrix tells us.

I'll assume that by this you mean that they need good critical thinking and a more inclusive philosophy. Just like there are dangerous, extremist believers (of any faith) there are dangerous, extremist atheists.

My version of non-theistic creation is better than your non-theistic version of creation!

*Burns embassy*