*ban

self post

Cartoonist Satish Acharya
http://www.cartoonistsatish.com/author/vibhinna/page/65/

Caricature of Team India captain Virat Kohli drawn by cartoonist Satish Acharya,

Stuart Lee is exactly the thing I'm talking about. I'm not saying that you SHOULD make fun of muslims or islam just to arbitrarily balance things out. I'm saying that you simply can't, or else.

Because when someone makes a joke or a cartoon, people get beheaded, cartoonists get shot with AK-47's, riots ensue, and clerics wish death on people. And at the very least people start yelling "racist".

I don't agree that the clip I've posted is satirizing the situation. He's pointing out that he knows what would happen if he did make a joke about it. The joke being "I'm not that stupid to do that".

Could you explain why you thought my previous post proposed a false dichotomy? It seems sound to me, even after looking at it a second time.

I don't disagree with your analyses of the underlying causes for the current version of the Palestinian conflict. History has shat on them and they're still stuck in it. Although I will nitpick that the tactic of suicide bombing is probably employed on account of specific Islamic beliefs, as relatively few such attacks are carried out by non-Muslims.

The IRA comparison is an interesting one with some meat on it, and I may meander a bit here as I explore my thoughts on it. The Northern Irish conflict, at its core, was not about religion, it was about sovereignty and independence. I don't doubt that both sides attempted to use the bible as a weapon. The very fact that the attempt was unable to create a sect that spread like wildfire across Christendom is a form of evidence that is it less applicable as a weapon. Certainly not proof, but I would count it a point in my favour, not yours.

Note that I'm not saying that there's nothing awful in the Bible, only that it is acknowledged that we don't take most of those parts of it seriously. Any attempt to do so would generate a chorus of condemnation throughout Christian majority countries the world over. Just look at how the we view the Westboro Baptists; they're a farce. Until the Muslim world is willing and able to do the same thing to it's fundamentals and fundamentalists it is not only fair to criticize it, it is important to do so. And when I say criticize 'it' I mean those beliefs that lead to bad shit.

If every terrorist act is predicated on worldly concerns, how do you rationalize the perpetrators of the Charlie hebdo massacre? How do you rationalize the absurd reactions to the shitty anti-Muslim movie that was made? How about the Danish cartoonist incident? The list goes on and on. These are acts that didn't significantly affect the 'injured' parties in any but a religious way. Their responses are explicitly and overtly for religious reasons, while being completely in line with a straightforward and insufficiently fringe interpretation of their religion.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jon stewart, cherlie hedbo, daily show, paris, shootings, cartoonist, satirist, tragic' to 'jon stewart, charlie hedbo, daily show, paris, shootings, cartoonist, satirist, tragic' - edited by Payback

then again...i could be completely wrong:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cartoonists-react-charlie-hebdo-attack

I'll try. The ghosts are Tracy Ullman Show
First at the door looks CGI claymation, then Anime, the third looks like Bob's Burgers.
I totally don't get the next ones, they look like Weebles.
Then in the background is Mr. and Mrs. Smith.
Next is the French cartoonist (I can't recall his name).
Then Lego.
Then Despicable Me.
And finally animal Simpsons.
I'm thinking these are all from opening sequences.
Newt

What I saw was Christian opposition to the METHODS of WBC, but not most of their sentiments. (true enough, the anti-military stance never took off in main stream Christianity, but the anti-homosexual part certainly did, and that was the base for the anti-military stance as I understood it, but maybe I misunderstood them). I saw no Christian opposition to their anti-homosexual stance ever....so they also played on the silence of their religion to further hate and intolerance.
I did see some Muslim's protest the death threats against cartoonists and others, but not nearly enough of them. I agree completely that the silence of the majority paints them with the unpleasant color of the vocal ugly minority mindset...I think that goes for any 'team'.

The real problem with Islam isn't the religion itself or the extremists exploiting it for their terrible and sometimes murderous goals, it's the silence of the moderate, tolerant Muslims. Their refusal to speak out against those who want to abuse their beliefs to pit Islam against the rest of the world is what makes all that hatred so effective.
I saw plenty christian opposition against the Westboro Baptist Church, I've yet to see muslims protesting death threats against cartoonists.

The crucial difference is that the WBC doesn't issue death threats toward novelists/cartoonists, unless they've evolved their God Hates Fags campaign, that is.

Plus the international media is more than happy to paint the WBC with true colors: the same can't be said about the media's response to the muslim reaction toward Salmon Rushdie/Dutch Newspaper/Matt Stone/Trey Parker/et al.

But I take your point.

Why do they hate Family Guy?

And why is it only Muslims who still get upset enough at irreverent media to seriously deter its production with predictable threats of violence? To hell with all chilling effects and censorship based on outrage based on bronze age myths. Every threat against a speaker should and usually does spawn dozens more like him in solidarity with the threatened speaker. On the internet this is known as the Streisand effect and it's pretty much inevitable. The assholes making death threats against cartoonists are way behind the times. "Islamophobia" acquiring the opprobrium of racism is absurd. Religion is a choice like becoming a member of the asshole tea party, not something unchangeable that you're born with like skin color. One might as well coin a term "Republicanophobia" and apply it to any harsh critic of the Republican party. All religions are rotten to the core just as all major parties are rotten to the core. But some religions are worse than others and some parties are worse than others, notwithstanding individual variability.

Joan is one of the funniest women to ever live, she is ridiculously brutal at times and I love her for it. But she looks like a cartoonist interpretation of nightmares.

As "poor, bombed massacred and isolated" as 1.4 billion can be, huh? That must be it. They were DRIVEN to their violent, sexually-repressed, misogynistic culture by outside forces. I guess it really IS ok for them to fly planes into buildings, spray acid in the faces of young schoolgirls, dismember strangers watching a footrace, kill cartoonists who draw their prophet (or just... somebody because a cartoonist drew their prophet), and kick and beat and stone to death daughters who dishonor their family by going and getting themselves raped. Islam has nothing to do with it.

Ok.

Ok, I'm sure to be attacked, but here's my take on it. We are ALL under surveillance in some shape or form? The police could not operate without public information. We are all encouraged to be vigilant and report our suspicions. The incitement part of this report is the only thing the police did wrong. Our enemies hide behind the very constitution they wish to destroy. Are Christians, Jews,or any other religion, carrying out beheadings, car bombings, or murdering authors and cartoonists, simply for "offending" their religion? Is there any other religion that has called for Jihad, Sharia, and death to "infidels?" I think it is extremely naive, and dangerous, to say; "we have to wait until they do something before acting." A group of Muslims are on trial in England. The carnage they planned was stopped before it happened. How do you suppose the intelligence service knew about it? Big Brother IS watching and, for my part, if they use surveillance, bugging, computer hacking etc, to prevent the atrocities we have all sadly witnessed, then I'm afraid, it is a necessary evil. Oh, and btw, was it constitutional to lock up Japanese Americans during WW2? Weren't they, also, innocent until proven guilty? of course they were, but who then would have taken the chance?

I do not often feel the urge to state my admiration for a comment, but this time, I think, I must. Nice one.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Brothers and sisters.

As an atheist, and a fairly outspoken one at that, I don't feel like Hedges trying to mischaracterize myself or my atheism. I feel like he is trying to challenge me, to keep me from being hypocritical and to make sure that my anger is turned only towards those who do harm, regardless of faith.

I think his criticism of Harris and Hitch have more to do with American attitudes on the middle east than atheists attitudes. Most Americans, myself included, know very little about that region, and what little I/we do know is all negative - sexism, genital mutilation, death threats against cartoonists, jihad, terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, etc. I assume a more realistic picture of the middle east would more closely resemble people of any country. I assume they love their friends and family, that they wish for a better life and a better world for their kids, that they enjoy art and music, that they have skills and hobbies and struggle to make ends meet, that they laugh and joke and mock and criticize the extremists of their country the way we do in ours, that they are frustrated with politics and the power the privileged few lord over them... but portraying humanity of the people in the middle east is something that is simply not done in American media.

I believe that we atheists, who value tolerance, should be making these arguments ourselves, and not trying to brush it under the rug when one of our public figures gets called out. I'm sure if you go through my comments over the years, I've probably made countless fruitless, unproductive and spiteful things about religion. I'm going to make an effort to do and say things differently in the future.

I'm down for coexisting with good people of all walks of life. We all have a common enemy in the powerful individuals who have seized control of our country. I don't want to fight with well intentioned Christians anymore; I want to fight along side them. I want to embrace the social justice that has long been a tradition of both liberalism and Catholicism - among other religions. I want to embrace throwing the money changers out of our democratic temples. I want a society that can be judged on how it treats the least among us. I want to live in a tighter knit, more connected and stronger society; not a selfish, paranoid and weaker one.

I think Hedges sees the problems of our time with remarkable clarity. I'm not threatened by him.

Brothers and sisters.

As an atheist, and a fairly outspoken one at that, I don't feel like Hedges trying to mischaracterize myself or my atheism. I feel like he is trying to challenge me, to keep me from being hypocritical and to make sure that my anger is turned only towards those who do harm, regardless of faith.

I think his criticism of Harris and Hitch have more to do with American attitudes on the middle east than atheists attitudes. Most Americans, myself included, know very little about that region, and what little I/we do know is all negative - sexism, genital mutilation, death threats against cartoonists, jihad, terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, etc. I assume a more realistic picture of the middle east would more closely resemble people of any country. I assume they love their friends and family, that they wish for a better life and a better world for their kids, that they enjoy art and music, that they have skills and hobbies and struggle to make ends meet, that they laugh and joke and mock and criticize the extremists of their country the way we do in ours, that they are frustrated with politics and the power the privileged few lord over them... but portraying humanity of the people in the middle east is something that is simply not done in American media.

I believe that we atheists, who value tolerance, should be making these arguments ourselves, and not trying to brush it under the rug when one of our public figures gets called out. I'm sure if you go through my comments over the years, I've probably made countless fruitless, unproductive and spiteful things about religion. I'm going to make an effort to do and say things differently in the future.

I'm down for coexisting with good people of all walks of life. We all have a common enemy in the powerful individuals who have seized control of our country. I don't want to fight with well intentioned Christians anymore; I want to fight along side them. I want to embrace the social justice that has long been a tradition of both liberalism and Catholicism - among other religions. I want to embrace throwing the money changers out of our democratic temples. I want a society that can be judged on how it treats the least among us. I want to live in a tighter knit, more connected and stronger society; not a selfish, paranoid and weaker one.

I think Hedges sees the problems of our time with remarkable clarity. I'm not threatened by him.