Or it could mean that they see the value of Respect for Religion and people of different faiths. And just as they are sensitive about what they would post about Christians they are similarly sensitive of what they would post about Islam.
Sure Re Freedom of Speech the Danish newspaper, French Newspapers etc. can publish whatever the hell they please. But that does not make what they publish right, or not offensive.Just as no Jew will want Nazi-ism portrayed or their Religion made fun of in Denmark, France, or Germany where thare are strict laws against such, why should a Muslim? Look, I live in a multi ethnic, multi religious society that respects all religions equally. In this regard my society is ahead of the US and other places,given the comments on this list and elsewhere in the Mainstream. We have an Inter Religious Organisation, we have public holidays that encompass all religions etc. The 'Mainstream' in Trinidad and Tobago would never ever support something like this, it would have been immediately seen for being offensive. And we value free speech and freedom of the press as much as anywhere else, but there is also good taste, and Respect for Religion as well. And this is mandated from a civil level among the population and fully supported and respected at the Government level, hence the Inter Religious Organisation in this country. That 'cartoon' was stupid and offensive, and the editor was rightly fired for publishing it. All other papers and countries that reposted the comic were similary foolish and provoking. That was not an issue about Freedom of Speech, it was an issue about good taste and Respect for Religion, or rather disrespect for a religion. And the second major religion in the world at that. Utterly foolish. It's only reported as an issue about 'Freedom of Speech' because the subject matter is Islam. Were it Jewish or Christian the entire world would have sided with the Jews or the Christians in denouncing the comic and it would most definitely not have been republished.The action would have been highly criticised and those publishing such would be seen as 'Extremists'. In other words, sure they *Could* have published it, but if it were any other religion, *would* they have published it, and *should* it have been published when seen in the light of respect for religion and the fact that it would have been seen as offensive? No. Anyone who claims otherwise is either bigoted in that they condemn all of Islam and all Muslims for the actions of Terrorists, or are utterly ignorant about Islam.There is no way that cartoon would not have been patently offensive to Muslims.As offensive as one depicting Mary getting a good shag would be to Christians. But as I said in another thread, those on the list arguing vehemently against Islam will never see it that way, because in their minds they have condemned all muslims and the entire Religion as a whole. Some of these individuals show thinly veiled hatred for Islam and Arabs, the same Hatred and intolerance which these religions and socities are criticised for showing. Sadly non americans and non christians are not well represented on this list, or otherwise they rightly choose to be lurkers, but it would be so good to get the perspective of a Muslim, or a Hindu on this issue. Again, because of the society in which I live, which is more advanced in terms of religious tolerance than most places in the world, I sit with Muslims, Hindus, Baptists, Christians and other denominations all the time. I enjoy Eid celebrations with my Muslim Friends, I enjoy Divali with my Hindu neighbours. So I have a far far different perspective on what it is to be a Muslim, and what publications and reactions such as what we have from the Industrialised nations of the West mean to Muslims, and true followers of Islam as a whole. I hope that one day those who lack tolerance and respect for those different to themselves, will come to a similar realisation before it is too late for the world. Because as this incident shows, our World is in serious, serious trouble. On 2/3/06, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It means that they feared for their reporters lives, so they refused > to publish the pictures (or even provide links). Much as CNN has been > known to do in the past, they caved to appease the violent extremists. > > They respect the fact that the violent extremists WILL try to kill > them if they print such things. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:195662 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
