Quote:
|
Originally Posted by abaya
That's what I was trying to say... the protests in response to the cartoon is extreme, certainly. But I think the cartoons are still offensive. It is not the same as portraying Moses, because there is no prohibition on portraying an image of Moses. The West KNOWS that Muslims take offense at portrayals of Mohammed, and yet Europe went ahead and did this just to "test" tolerance. That is no way to go about encouraging dialogue, and both parties are to blame if you ask me. The paper should not have printed something just to piss a group of people off on purpose (again, what kind of journalism is that?), and the group responding should not resort to these means to make their opposition known.
|
In my opinion, it's totally irrelevant that we know they don't like portrayals of Mohammad. Islam doesn't like people eating pigs either; do we stop eating pigs because it offends Muslims? They are the ones with the problem here. It's their religion, not ours, we don't have to follow it, and we don't have to follow its anachronistic rules.
That, the suggestion that we
do have to follow its rules, is what I find offensive personally. Did the original publisher do it intentionally to piss them off? I don't know, and I don't care either, because it would be perfectly reasonable to print these cartoons without an intention to offend anyone as well.