![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by agent858 on March 16, 2006, at 21:30:47
i wanted to post about them before... but i think i was blocked at the time.
any thoughts on that?
freedom of press vs religious / cultural insult?
i have an opinion (of course)
but i'd be interested to hear what other people think...
(you know what i'm talking about? it was about the cartoons depicting... some religious leader... and apparantly the insult was that you aren't supposed to depict that religious leader in pictures etc)
apparantly... that was what it was about. not so much that they considered him to be depicted in an insulting manner (though that may have added insult ot injury) more that he was depicted at all...
and then the point that when that hit the news... other news sources reproduced teh image....
Posted by Declan on March 17, 2006, at 2:45:17
In reply to cartoons, posted by agent858 on March 16, 2006, at 21:30:47
I'm glad they weren't published here. There was enough trouble already with the Australia day/lebanese gangs thingos. I do think you should be able to publish them, of course. But culture wars are such a strain. I'm so sick of them.
Declan
Posted by wildcard11 on March 17, 2006, at 9:47:35
In reply to cartoons, posted by agent858 on March 16, 2006, at 21:30:47
i have tried to look at these issues from both sides of the fence and i must say that, ex: a cartoon downing the U.S. would offend me greatly so i do understand why any other country would feel the same way. i think there is a point where freedom of speech and plain sensitivity (not sure of the word i'm grasping for), need to weigh in together. i'm thinking of the cartoon by an American that really offended another country and their religious beliefs that they actually put a bounty hunter out for them....WOW!
Posted by AuntieMel on March 17, 2006, at 10:56:19
In reply to cartoons, posted by agent858 on March 16, 2006, at 21:30:47
My opinion:
I think the first printing was no big deal - as they said there is freedom of the press.
I think *some* of the reprintings were done with an "in your face" attitide.
I do have a problem that in some of the countries, where the protesting was the most loudly expressed, cartoons that are even *more* insulting (by my opinion - I hate to give examples because some of them really are vile) of *other* religions and people are freely printed.
They weren't printed by anyone over here, either. I had to do a google search and find them on a European web site. I wanted, just for my own knowledge, to know if they would have been unsulting if "joe blow" had been depicted.
Posted by James K on March 17, 2006, at 12:37:35
In reply to cartoons, posted by agent858 on March 16, 2006, at 21:30:47
My thoughts are this, Many of the Muslim countries are run by their religion. I don't know if Theocracy is the exact correct word. So insulting their prophet or religion, would be analagous to someone burning our flag. (which is still legal but won't be someday if they keep introducing constitutional amendments)
that covers the political aspect of it for me. The religious aspect is a matter of respect, and respect is something a person shows or doesn't, but I don't think it can be enforced across borders.
James K
Posted by agent858 on March 17, 2006, at 20:10:03
In reply to Re: cartoons » agent858, posted by Declan on March 17, 2006, at 2:45:17
> I'm glad they weren't published here.
really?
well done australia :-)two new zealand newspapers reproduced them.
and... i think they may have been shown on one television news channel...
> There was enough trouble already with the Australia day/lebanese gangs thingos.
ah. yeah i remember hearing about that.
> I do think you should be able to publish them, of course.
Okay.
Posted by agent858 on March 17, 2006, at 20:13:56
In reply to Confusing world we live in..., posted by wildcard11 on March 17, 2006, at 9:47:35
> i have tried to look at these issues from both sides of the fence and i must say that, ex: a cartoon downing the U.S. would offend me greatly so i do understand why any other country would feel the same way.
yeah. we had a problem here a few years back now... some piece of art depicting the virgin mary enveloped in this huge oversize condom. it was on display at te papa (national museum) and catholics were protesting...
but i'm getting the impression that is wasn't so much about their being upset at what was depicted (that they found that to be insulting) it was more the fact that the religious figure was depicted at all (i think maybe that comes from something saying to have no idols and hence they don't think he should be depicted in statue or on paper or whatever because it is making an idol or somehting like that...)
i'm not sure what i think about the mary case...
the catholic church have no problem with statues of mary...i'm not too sure...
> i think there is a point where freedom of speech and plain sensitivity (not sure of the word i'm grasping for), need to weigh in together.
yeah, i agree.
Posted by agent858 on March 17, 2006, at 20:21:11
In reply to Re: cartoons » agent858, posted by AuntieMel on March 17, 2006, at 10:56:19
> My opinion:
> I think the first printing was no big deal - as they said there is freedom of the press.yeah. apparantly the guy who made the cartoons said that he meant them to be a social commentary - he did not mean to offend a lot of people. i think we should be charitable regarding his intentions... i think it was an honest mistake to offend them...
> I think *some* of the reprintings were done with an "in your face" attitide.
yeah. and then once people realised just how offended they were...
they reproduced them over and over. 'these are what is considered so offensive'. i don't think that was necessary. they could have described them rather than reprinting them. no need to repeat the insult.
they could have said 'yeah okay so we did have the right to print them... but with rights come responsibilities surely... the cartoons were intended to be a social commentary... but the message has been lost because lots of people were inadvertantly offended by these... we didn't mean to cause such offence... we are sorry'.
how hard would that have been?
> I do have a problem that in some of the countries, where the protesting was the most loudly expressed, cartoons that are even *more* insulting (by my opinion - I hate to give examples because some of them really are vile) of *other* religions and people are freely printed.yeah. i think the trouble is more that it is considered a major no no to draw pictures / have statues or anything like that of the figure that was depicted. a major violation of their religious beliefs... maybe i'm missing the mark... but maybe even more offensive (to people who are believers) than the virgin mary in a condom???
not too sure...
i guess the mary pictures weren't appearing in newspapers and on tv... up to you whether you go to the exhibition or not...
> I had to do a google search and find them on a European web site.ah. so they are still around then...
yeah... of course they are...
> I wanted, just for my own knowledge, to know if they would have been unsulting if "joe blow" had been depicted.
and a description of them wouldn't have sufficed?
Posted by agent858 on March 17, 2006, at 20:24:16
In reply to Re: cartoons, posted by James K on March 17, 2006, at 12:37:35
it is illegal to burn a nz flag in nz.
so the waitangi day before last (where protest activities are fairly much compulsory) some guy pulled out a gun and shot holes in a flag. apparantly... it isn't illegal to shoot holes in a nz flag in nz
:-)
> that covers the political aspect of it for me. The religious aspect is a matter of respect, and respect is something a person shows or doesn't, but I don't think it can be enforced across borders.yeah. enforcement is hard...
but i feel sad when people really upset other people (intentionally or unintentionally whatever) and then... aren't even sorry that they did cause offense... and they persist in doing what caused offense...
and why?
the message was lost.
so what was the point?
pride?
dunno.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on March 17, 2006, at 23:00:15
In reply to Re: cartoons » James K, posted by agent858 on March 17, 2006, at 20:24:16
Beliefnet has a real good cartoon or funnies section called Faith in the Funnies. I'm not going to provide a link because some of the funnies would be considered uncivil, but if you're really interested, you can look for it, and it's out there.
They do poke fun at some of our religious leaders, the Supreme Court, etc. I've had a good time looking at them. Some of the points they make are incredibly valid, and some of the stuff is just plain fun.
Just wanted to let the interested know it's out there.--Dee
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.