Swedish papers publish Prophet Muhammad drawing

[onehandle]

Source: AP

STOCKHOLM – At least three Swedish newspapers on Wednesday published a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad with the body of a dog after an alleged plot to murder the artist who created it was uncovered in Ireland.

The controversial drawing by Swedish artist Lars Vilks was printed in Stockholm papers Dagens Nyheter and Expressen and the Malmo daily Sydsvenska Dagbladet.

Irish authorities on Tuesday detained four men and three women suspected of involvement in an alleged plot to kill Vilks. Irish police said Wednesday those arrested were two Algerians, two Libyans, a Palestinian, a Croatian and an American woman married to one of the Algerian suspects. They were not identified by name.

Sydsvenska Dagbladet said it printed the drawing as part of its news coverage of the alleged plot. Expressen said it printed it for its news value and to take a stance for the freedom of speech.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100310/ap_on_re_eu/eu_sweden_prophet_drawing

[RandomThoughts]

1. You know I have thought on that topic.

I think it comes from the no graven images of God, and in many groups they include people in heaven also or something like that.

Exodus 20:4-6 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

But here is the thing.

Why no graven images? Probably not because they would be wrong, God could make them correct. Probably not because people don't look the same, because we were created in his image.

So why no graven images of God? Or heavenly things.

This was the conclusion I came to.

The bad side fell to pride, and for a long time many groups were building idols with faces of this or that thing claiming to be God. You could see it everywhere, any tin pot false god would get some thing made in his image to do what? Celebrate pride vanity? That's how it seemed to me.

So I sort of think of it as if God told Moses, hey now that your out of Egypt, don't let them start with that silly superficial stuff like graven images of God, just try to keep them from messing up with these other rules. It seems to be non prideful act. God could have said only graven images of God, but instead he said no graven images of anything above or below. That sounds like he doesn't think that stuff is that important, and could be even used for bad.

To me that rule is not to keep people from defaming God or something in heaven, but because God is not a prideful needy type. He doesn't need those things, there are more important things like the other stuff in Holy texts, and maybe even to not letting idol creep occur by people making images to worship.

So in some way, I think getting mad at someone making a image of some person, even if believed to be in heaven, and somehow defending with pride or anger or violence something God was not that worried about seems wrong to me. God didn't say stop or destroy anyone that does that thing, he said not to do it.

I understand it is a commandment and should not be done, but it does not seem that the reason to get upset would be to defend God's pride by attacking someone for doing it. Instead a person should not do it themselves, if they believe the person to be a heavenly thing.

Does that make sense, sure it is wrong, but not because it somehow hurts God, but because he doesn't think in vain or prideful ways and doesn't need those things from people that follow him.

It just seems backwards to me, they should ignore people that do that, and not get mad at them. Its not like some person here could do damage to something in heaven with an image, if that is where the person even is.

Maybe the verse means something else to other people, but that is how I thought on it, could be wrong, anyone else think on this?

[panzerfaust]

11. Many protestants - iconoclasts - took the same view, and destroyed much art work in the RC Churches

I do not recall who it was who defined Puritanism as that "Dread, inescapable feeling that someone, somewhere, is enjoying himself" but that seems pretty apt.

One might look into why Rhode Island was founded. Hint, the founder is the person who coined the phrase "wall of separation" between religion and the secular state and who was persecuted by our godlike "Pilgrim Fathers" for preaching religious toleration.

This might seem odd, but by "religious freedom" what the Pilgrims actually meant was the freedom to force their religion on all others, and to be free from having other religions forced onto them. Pretty much what the Evangelical Right means by "Religious Freedom" to this day.

The Puritans also took a dim view of "idolatry" in general, and in "Houses of Worship" in particular. One can only contrast this dismal view with the heavenly artistic creations left to us by the artists sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church.



The absence of such art, would leave the world a much poorer place.

[MellowDem]

29. Iconoclasm is mostly associated with the Byzantine Empire...

which had iconoclastic periods. Some protestants, during the reformation, were iconoclasts, but many others were not. Martin Luther eventually came around himself to the idea of physical depictions. The idea was that the Roman Catholic Church was worshiping false idols, and in the case of many of the saints, it was rather comparable to the pagan religions of old to the Protestants. Also, it was part of the general revulsion to the Roman Catholic Church's hypocrisy and corruption. And it was largely Protestant countries, such as the Netherlands, that allowed for more free artistic experession because of the Catholic Church's idea of "heretical" art. Post-reformation, protestants really were not known for iconoclasm, and I don't think the comparision to present day Muslims makes much sense.

Personally, I think the Roman Catholic Church has discouraged art and beauty more than it has ever encouraged it.

[Duer 157099]

30. From what I recall, it had to do with a golden calf

When the Jews were exiled in Egypt, the were surrounded by all sorts of idolatry and their God really disapproved of it, so when he got them home into "their own" land, he forbade it. I think that more than anything, many of these rules and "laws" were created in order to set the Jews apart, to prove to everyone else that they were different. The chosen ones. Special. etc.

[bitchkitty]

55. All the men who throughout time claimed to

have talked to God, never had the first witness to the conversation.

The whole thing is asinine. Stupidity at its finest!

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftynyc]

5. You can't say anything

slamming the fanatics without being accused of "wanting to drop bombs" on their heads. The double standard is sickening.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bill McBlueState]

28. argh!

Your claim about what 'we' do around here is demonstrably false. When I read this thread at 5:45 pm EST Wednesday, something like 80% of the posts were critical of Islam or supportive of the newspaper.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. You are correct in this thread, but my observation was about DU in general

And I stand by it.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. Yr 'observation' is totally incorrect...

It's bad enough that conservatives make blatantly untrue accusations against DU, let alone an upstanding Progessive such as yrself...

[Violet_Crumble]

51. If people slam Jews here, they get banned really quick...

We treat muslims with kid (and never pig skin) gloves.

Imagine if someone said 'We treat Jews with kid (and never pig skin) gloves.' Would you find that acceptable? I've got no problem with people criticising a religion, but when folk such as yrself blur the line between the religion and members of that religion, then that' where it's crossed the line into intolerance...

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madmom]

4. It seems to me, that if they want to practice that in their country or their religion, that is

their business. BUT when it's another country or even another religion or non-believer it is if no consequence to them, same as the religious zealots in this country demanding their way with everything under the sun. If you don't like it don't do it, but I make my own choices thank you.

[kestrel91316]

6. No religious group has ANY RIGHT WHATSOEVER to force its rules

upon any person who is not a member of the religious group.

[The Magistrate]

9. Hear Hear, Ma'am!

[kestrel91316]

14. Hey, welcome back! Hope you are well!

[lib_wit_it]

Exactly! But, of course, they all think they do.

[Fumesucker]

39. I disagree..

No religious group has any right to force its rules on anyone at all.. Everyone should be free to ignore any religious rules they wish whether or not they belong to a particular group.

[bigworld]

7. If God is offended, let Him mete out the justice

Who the hell are we to say what is and isn't right?

[Jim__]

8. Great! A good response to this type of this thing is ...

... if someone is murdered because of a picture or article, news media across the world should all print the offending article/picture. That way, the murder insures that the offending work gets spread as widely as possible.

[paulsby]

12. good. take the heckler's veto and shove it up their ass

good for them

[buckrogers1965]

13. Nobody has to respect your religion.

They don't have to follow your teachings or obey your religious "laws."

In fact they are free to publicly mock you and your beliefs.

That is what freedom is all about.

Don't like it?

Then go live in some mountain well away from sane people and leave us the hell alone.

Anyone have a link to the picture? I'd like to post it on my website.

[rabs]

34. I too was curious so went looking for the cartoon

Found the cartoon and background on Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Vilks_Muhammad_drawings_controversy

(edit to fix typos)

[gtar100]

50. Insanity that anyone would kill over that.

Testament to the insecurity of religious followers.

[OneBlueSky]

15. notice that Yahoo didn't risk reproducing the picture . . .

guess they're afraid of the repercussions . . .

[Psephos]

41. A true profile in courage.

Not.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. I am surprised this was published in Malmo.

[cali]

26. no kidding. what a horror show.

[pettypace]

17. You people need to think in practical terms

Why antagonize a tiger?

Do you go up to a bear and throw sticks at him?

If you see a hornet's nest, are you going to knock it down?

The newspapers may be thinking they're excersing their right, but how about considering the fact that the action will further inflame a highly volatile population who has proven they will resort to physical retribution to correct the perceived wrongdoing.

We can discuss all we want as to why these 'extremists' are so adamant in not wanting a visual depiction of their venerable prophet, but publishing the photos are not the way to go about it, unless an extreme reaction is what you are hoping for.



I'm thinking those Swede newspapers are run by right-wing, anti-immigration zealots.

[dflprincess]

23. Do you let a bully push you around?

Or do you stand up and say "Enough!"

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

25. That Is What Police Forces Are For, Ma'am, To Check Mob Action

[Psephos]

40. That mentality is what leads to the bully problem in the first place.

If you think the Islamic bullying will go away through appeasement then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[Flaneur]

18. The freedom to do something doesn't mean you always should.

I am free to walk up to you and call you a fucking asshole. Most of the time, I will reserve the right to do so instead of exercising that right.

I wonder what purpose the Swedish newspapers think they accomplished with this stunt?

[paulsby]

19. it's the best response to the heckler's veto

to shove it right back in their faces

otherwise, you have the twisted reality (which is the reality) where people feel free to criticize, mock, scorn, deride peaceful religions (religions where they need not fear violent backlash) and are afraid to do so with islam.

scorcese didn't have to go into hiding for last temption, nor did serrano for piss christ, etc.

but rushdie did. and a movie director was also killed in europe due to his (alleged) anti-muslim expressions

so the subset of muslims that calls for (and does) violent acts against those that mock their religion are successful in protecting their religion from scorn, when by their very actions they invite scorn and should be facing the most scorn

the swedish newspapers struck a blow for freedom from oppression, fear and intimidation by scumbags who are trying to squelch opinion

[Flaneur]

31. And they sold some newspapers.

[paulsby]

33. well, that too nt

[Fumesucker]

42. Christianity isn't entirely peaceful either..

You might want to check with a few reproductive health clinics and see what precautions they take on a daily basis against "peaceful" Christians.

[paulsby]

45. the reality is as i said it

people ROUTINELY mock, scorn and parody christianity and do so without fear of death

in a country like ours with scores of millions of christians, scorcese, serrano eet al were perfectly safe.

try dunking a koran in urine in a public display and see how safe you are.

the same safety cannot be had for those that publish controversial cartoons , books or movies about islam

furthermore, those who bomb clinics and/or dr's are an extremely tiny subset of christians (in a nation with over 100 million self identified christians) and are promptly condemned by all mainstream christian organization

i didn't say that no christians ever do violent acts in the name of their religion

my point was, and as i stated, that you can mock christianity without fearing for your life. the same cannot be said of islam

and that is true even in countries where muslims make up a small minority.

you can't even walk down the street with a bible or torah prominently displayed in your hands, let alone preach publically christianity or judaism in many majority muslim countries without fearing for your life, with good reason.

[Fumesucker]

46. Umm.. I'm far from defending Muslims or Islam..

I don't like the fact that majority Muslim nations seem to have little freedom and certainly they lack freedom of religion.

But you also have to keep in mind that Islam is about to the point where Christianity was in 1600 or so, the Spanish Inquisition lasted into the 1830's..

Then there was the whole "Baptist church used scripture to justify slavery thing" for which they finally apologized not all that long ago.

And I suspect that there are quite a few gay people who would disagree with you about not fearing for their lives from Christians.

Last but not least the country that has "In God We Trust" on its legal tender and "One nation under God" in its official pledge has invaded more nations than any other and killed millions of people for no good reason in the last sixty years.

[The Magistrate]

47. But None Of That, Sir, Addresses The Gentleman's Point

Draw the body of a dog with the head of the Christ upon it, and you will get hate mail, but you will not provoke a riot, or find people offering in all seriousness substantial sums to anyone who kills you.

The point at issue is not whether the West has done bad things to Moslems, or whether there has been dangerous intolerance in the West during its history: the point at issue is, do a body of Moslems get to enforce their views and laws concerning blasphemy on people who are not Moslems? The answer to that question, from any cultural heir of the Enlightenment, must be no....

[Violet_Crumble]

49. There was no riot in this case...

Also, you don't know whether or not there have been instances where insane extremist Christians have offered up money to have other people killed. The bottom line is that extremists are all intolerant, and despite what many Americans like to believe, Muslim extremists aren't unique.

As an atheist myself, extremist Muslims have no right to enforce their views and laws on me, but that also doesn't mean I have to behave like an intolerant wanker by stirring them up and intentionally being offensive.

[The Magistrate]

53. In This Instance, My Friend, There Have Been Arrests For Conspiring To Murder

'Protests' in Moslem countries were mentioned, but without further details cannot be characterized either way. There certainly were riots over an early bout of Scandinavian cartooning depicting Mohammed, as well as at least one attempt at murder of a cartoonist. It is a general condition, wider than this single incident, being discussed here by now.

In the 'culture wars' in the U.S., at least, there have been no reports of people being killed over disrespectful portrayals of Christ, or other figures of Christian belief, nor have there been reports of bounties being offered for such killings. There have been small protests over various art exhibits, or the staging of certain plays. In regard to violence, what we do have is a reasonably well organized substrate of violently religious people willing to murder doctors who perform abortions, and persons associated with there clinics. There have been a very few people who pushed this towards full-scale revolution, to the point of armored car robberies (revolution needs funds), and these are generally also serious racists: the group which comes to mind is the 'Phineas Priesthood', named after a fellow in an incident in the Bible, who kills 'with a single thrust of his spear' an Israelite and his foreign wife.

The cartoonist may well be 'an ignorant wanker', and may have failed in politeness, but that is beside the point of the disproportion of the reaction to the proclaimed 'offense'. It is that over-reaction which is the problem here, and which also guarantees some people will engage in provocation for the sheer sport and entertainment of the spectacle.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. I see the ones arrested in this case as similar to the Army Of God types in the US...

They're lunatics who are the extreme end of their movement/religion and who everyone should breath a sigh of relief about when they get locked up where they can't do any harm to anyone...

I do agree with you that the response is of course totally disproportionate and there's never any justication or excuses for either making death threats or going further and planning to commit a murder.

[LanternWaste]

20. I would imagine to pump up circulation...

"I wonder what purpose the Swedish newspapers think they accomplished with this stunt?"

I would imagine to pump up circulation (albeit temporarily) and increase both advertising sales and profit.

[slackmaster]

21. Swedish newspapers are just like most newspapers anywhere else

I wonder what purpose the Swedish newspapers think they accomplished with this stunt?

To sell more newspapers.

[depakid]

38. Yep- does anyone doubt American papers would do the same if they could get a rise out of folks?

[paulsby]

48. NYT didn't print the mohammed cartoons

they (imo it was a lie) claimed they didn't do it out of editorial discretion. imo, it was fear.

[Tailormyst]

43. They were covering the arrest of people planning to commit murder over the comic

The ones people should be angry with are the 6 zealots who feel the right to take someones life over a drawing.

[Odin2005]

22. If your religious beliefs go against the principles of freedom of speech then...

...you don't belong in a Western country.

[customerserviceguy]

32. Any deity

that can't take a fucking joke is pretty damned powerless, I'd say.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

44. +Graham's Number

[Liberal_in_LA]

37. uh oh! n/t