finding myself in the middle... again.
people want to protest in huge numbers because someone disrespected their religion, im all for it and i don't even have to agree. my problem is with the violence, which i think we can all agree is pretty ridiculous.
BUT my problem with the western side of this debate is the typically Euro-centric/American ignorant comment i see a lot along the lines of, "it's just a cartoon, people!! grow up!! WTF!?" well, i see it as the equivalent of a paper in the muslim world publishing satirical cartoons on the idea that mary fucked around on joseph, gets knocked up, and she says, "uh, the baby is... the son of... uh, GOD! yeah, this baby that's not yours is the son of God" Obviously a lot of christians around the world are gonna get really pissed off about it. protest, maybe. be violent, i doubt it, with few exceptions, of coarse. but, from what i understand, muslims don't believe jesus is the son of god, just another prophet, so why should they see the big deal with my example.
my point is, i see most people i know talking about this debate without really taking the time to understand why it is such a big deal to publish pictures of mohammed. like most strong religious beliefs, it's really simple. To Mohammed, like Moses, worshiping false idols was big no-no, . he believed that God made man in His image, and to create an image of a man, is recreating an image of God and potentially a false idol. So he discouraged the visual depictions of ANYONE back then, not just himself. Back when europe was just starting to learn that bathing regularly is good and wallowing in your own shit and piss is bad (i.e. the plague), the Muslim Arabs, Persians(i think), and Chinese were the top dogs by far in everything including art and architecture. so, like any dominant culture several works art are produced and most, if not all of muslim art from this time period were tapestries and intricate designs with floral patterns. if works had depictions of people, they were most often destroyed.
but like all trivial religious beliefs, there is a grand hypocrisy in this. you've seen it, large groups of muslims waving posters of arafat, osama, and the grand ayatollah humina-fumina and the like.
i’m all for the free press publishing what ever the hell it wants. but don’t act surprised if people take some things really fucking personal when you publish offensive matierial.
and choosing to be strongly devout in any religion is not because one is "poor" or "uneducated". to say that is fucking ignorant. SOME of the smartest people i will ever know are also the most devout to their belief of choice. i have no religious beliefs at all and it sure as hell hasn't made me richer or a better speller.
BUT my problem with the western side of this debate is the typically Euro-centric/American ignorant comment i see a lot along the lines of, "it's just a cartoon, people!! grow up!! WTF!?" well, i see it as the equivalent of a paper in the muslim world publishing satirical cartoons on the idea that mary fucked around on joseph, gets knocked up, and she says, "uh, the baby is... the son of... uh, GOD! yeah, this baby that's not yours is the son of God" Obviously a lot of christians around the world are gonna get really pissed off about it. protest, maybe. be violent, i doubt it, with few exceptions, of coarse. but, from what i understand, muslims don't believe jesus is the son of god, just another prophet, so why should they see the big deal with my example.
my point is, i see most people i know talking about this debate without really taking the time to understand why it is such a big deal to publish pictures of mohammed. like most strong religious beliefs, it's really simple. To Mohammed, like Moses, worshiping false idols was big no-no, . he believed that God made man in His image, and to create an image of a man, is recreating an image of God and potentially a false idol. So he discouraged the visual depictions of ANYONE back then, not just himself. Back when europe was just starting to learn that bathing regularly is good and wallowing in your own shit and piss is bad (i.e. the plague), the Muslim Arabs, Persians(i think), and Chinese were the top dogs by far in everything including art and architecture. so, like any dominant culture several works art are produced and most, if not all of muslim art from this time period were tapestries and intricate designs with floral patterns. if works had depictions of people, they were most often destroyed.
but like all trivial religious beliefs, there is a grand hypocrisy in this. you've seen it, large groups of muslims waving posters of arafat, osama, and the grand ayatollah humina-fumina and the like.
i’m all for the free press publishing what ever the hell it wants. but don’t act surprised if people take some things really fucking personal when you publish offensive matierial.
and choosing to be strongly devout in any religion is not because one is "poor" or "uneducated". to say that is fucking ignorant. SOME of the smartest people i will ever know are also the most devout to their belief of choice. i have no religious beliefs at all and it sure as hell hasn't made me richer or a better speller.