HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Let's test when a cartoon...

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:36 AM

 

Let's test when a cartoon is free speech vs hate & blasphemy

The Torah (˜ Christian Old Testament) and the Quran say: death to blasphemers.

PC people (press, some at DU) are squeamish to state that fact when it applies to Islam.


the following cartoon expresses that Torah/Quran doctrine + the PC squeamishness.

My question: is this cartoon free speech and satire, or is it racist blasphemous hate speech?


36 replies, 2524 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply Let's test when a cartoon is free speech vs hate & blasphemy (Original post)
Albertoo Jan 2015 OP
Scuba Jan 2015 #1
Renew Deal Jan 2015 #2
Scuba Jan 2015 #10
MrBig Jan 2015 #31
FSogol Jan 2015 #3
LexVegas Jan 2015 #4
MohRokTah Jan 2015 #5
dissentient Jan 2015 #6
840high Jan 2015 #7
upaloopa Jan 2015 #8
Albertoo Jan 2015 #13
fishwax Jan 2015 #9
Albertoo Jan 2015 #15
fishwax Jan 2015 #27
Johonny Jan 2015 #11
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jan 2015 #12
hedgehog Jan 2015 #14
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2015 #17
Albertoo Jan 2015 #18
hedgehog Jan 2015 #30
brooklynite Jan 2015 #32
Albertoo Jan 2015 #33
LordGlenconner Jan 2015 #35
KittyWampus Jan 2015 #16
oberliner Jan 2015 #19
Albertoo Jan 2015 #21
el_bryanto Jan 2015 #23
Albertoo Jan 2015 #24
el_bryanto Jan 2015 #26
Albertoo Jan 2015 #34
el_bryanto Jan 2015 #36
LanternWaste Jan 2015 #20
Albertoo Jan 2015 #22
treestar Jan 2015 #25
el_bryanto Jan 2015 #28
treestar Jan 2015 #29

Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:41 AM

1. There's no such thing as blasphemy ...

 

... to us atheists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:42 AM

2. That's heresy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:02 PM

10. No heresy either.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:46 PM

31. That's apostasy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:44 AM

3. We want Barabbas!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:45 AM

4. Free speech and satire. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:47 AM

5. A work can be both free speech and satire as well as racist hate speech.

 

Blasphemy, however, is a victimless crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:49 AM

6. My opinion is it's free speech, and it wouldn't matter what cartoon it was either

 

It's all free speech, even if its hateful, racist, etc. The first amendment protects it.

Regarding this cartoon, I'd say its mediocre, but that is my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dissentient (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:58 AM

7. ....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:59 AM

8. Holy books are just ink on paper.

People are the ones who commit acts.
Stop blaming ink on paper and put the blame where it belongs. On people who act out of ignorance and learned bigotry and hatred! Be they of what ever religion they are responsible for their actions not some ancient text.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:12 PM

13. true. But the pen dipped in that ink commands armies of swords. Or nukes. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 11:59 AM

9. nothing about those categories is mutually exclusive

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:16 PM

15. You know what I meant

 

Clearly, I was trying to draw the line between
• criticism of religions, even if disrespectful of said religion = free speech
• attack on the people followers of such or such faith = hate speech

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #15)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:34 PM

27. I didn't know what you meant, exactly...but i meant what I said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:02 PM

11. The media isn't an optometrist.

The whole cartoon makes no sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:10 PM

12. There's an actual message there.

It's one that many people would disagree with while many also agree with it, but it encapsulates a set of ongoing arguments.

It's not simply an insult. So yeah, this particular cartoon, for instance, could be satire, while a picture depicting a holy figure with dripping genitals is not. And there's nothing 'PC' squeamish about pointing out that the other cartoon was not 'satire'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:15 PM

14. We can disagree with what is said, while defending the right to say it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:18 PM

17. ^this^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:19 PM

18. Absolutely. But can you disagree with facts?

 

The 'three religions of the Book' have passages of their texts calling for death to blasphemers.

And it's problematic. See Charlie Hebdo.

That's why I cringe when I hear any religion is a religion of 'peace'.

Their texts are anything but peaceful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:39 PM

30. and I also can choose not to engage in proof-texting.

For those who don’t know what proof-texting is – it is finding passages of scripture that supports whatever position you want to uphold. Typically what happens is that an assertion is made, which generates disagreement. The opposer will list a passage of scripture or a string of passages as proof that that assertion is wrong. I have noticed this to be a common occurrence in the blogosphere. But I do believe it happens quite often in face to face conversations.

......

Problem of interpretation: isolating passages by themselves does not address the meaning and how that relates to what is being refuted. Passages must be considered in their rightful context and then correlated to the overall witness of scripture. For example, the issue of Christians and alcohol came up recently, which generated a host of passages that either supported either the acceptance of alcohol or its prohibition. Proof-texting can allow support for both sides but something has obviously gotten lost if that is so. Also, a word doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing everywhere it’s used, which is why context is so important. To interpret properly, the word has to be examined according to how the author is using it. If we throw out a string of passages simply because we think it aligns because it is using the same word or the same concept, it is quite possible that we are comparing apples with oranges.

Problem of communcation: proof-texting does not really promote dialogue. It does not address where the differences are occurring. When passages are identified that seem to conflict with our understanding, there needs to be a dialogue about why the passages listed stand in opposition to whatever position is being refuted and specific points of difference. And dialogue does not mean, ‘let me tell you why you’re wrong’. It goes back to understanding. Moreover, the interpretation and understanding factor ought to compel an examination of how we are communicating particular topics or passages.

Problem of arrogance: by throwing out a series of passages, especially if there is no explanation offered, can exude a confidence in one’s position that does not need explaining. It can communicate the idea that the proof-texter has it all figured out and the position that is being refuted would certainly not be made if the presenter really had an understanding of what the bible is saying regarding the topic. It can paint the proof-texter in light of having a superior knowledge of the topic.

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/09/the-problem-with-proof-texting/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #30)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:54 PM

32. Problem of religion: the supposed deity does such a poor job of "inspiring" writers of scripture...

...that they can't be clear about what the "correct" interpretation of god's will is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #30)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:57 PM

33. Problem of religion #2: 'God' can't make 'sacred books' without murderous soundbites. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 01:00 PM

35. Which is why they should all be viewed with an equal amount of disdain

 

That's how I approach it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:17 PM

16. you are throwing out diversions. The cartoon doesn't incite hatred or violence

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:21 PM

19. How does one know if a cartoon will incite hatred or violence?

 

What are the qualities necessary for a cartoon to incite hatred or violence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:24 PM

21. No. My subtext was that massacres in the name of religion are not an anomaly

 

I just can't stand hearing that killings like the Paris one are due to fringe lunatics.

The stereotypical comment is that it's got nothing to do with religion. Baloney.

So I'm not diverting from anything, just reacting to the empty banalities of the Press.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #21)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:26 PM

23. So how culpable should believers feel, assuming they didn't support or participate in massacres? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #23)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:27 PM

24. Not feel guilt, review their beliefs. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #24)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:33 PM

26. OK - and if their personal beliefs don't condone violence, but other members of their religion

do commit violence in the name of religion - what is the appropriate response then?

Bryant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #26)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:58 PM

34. Appropriate response = educate about the violent lunacy of the texts they think are 'holy'. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #34)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 01:15 PM

36. So a Christian or a Muslim who believes himself or herself to be peaceful is kidding themselves? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:23 PM

20. I don't think the concept of free speech inherently or necessarily denies either hate or blaspheme

I don't think the concept of free speech inherently or necessarily denies either hate or blaspheme in its construct. A given statement, or even the cartoon provided could be any one of the three, any two of the three, or any three of the three.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:25 PM

22. Please see my comment #15. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Original post)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:29 PM

25. Islam person #1 says behead infidels

and even acts on it.

Islam persons #2 - 3,000,000 may not agree with that, see? It is a religion of peace for them.

I don't know why it is hard, since we as liberals already condemn right wingers for calling people-group violent because some other persons of their same race did something violent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #25)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:35 PM

28. The distinction there is that people don't choose their race.

people do choose their religion.

Bryant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #28)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 12:37 PM

29. I see that as a grey area

One can "choose" to drop the religion one was raised on, but it's not that easy. Plus it must not be easy in an Islamic state. I don't expect 1.2 billion Muslims to drop the religion because of what these guys did. It's part of their culture.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread