Cartoons again

[Micilin]

Just a new thread as the one with the images makes the font too small.

What puzzles me a little is that the new Charlie cartoon, for example, doesn't explicitly state it is about the prophet Muhammed.

So is the 'blasphemy' actually only in the reader's mind as they make the association?

Or am I missing something?

 

[bernardgreen]

What puzzles me a little is that the new Charlie cartoon, for example, doesn't explicitly state it is about the prophet Muhammed.

So is the 'blasphemy' actually only in the reader's mind as they make the association?

Exactly. in the mind of the reader.

 

[Johnmelad]

Just a new thread as the one with the images makes the font too small.

What puzzles me a little is that the new Charlie cartoon, for example, doesn't explicitly state it is about the prophet Muhammed.

So is the 'blasphemy' actually only in the reader's mind as they make the association?

Or am I missing something?

What blasphemy?

To blaspheme is to speak with contempt about God or to be defiantly irreverent. According to Black's Law Dictionary, blasphemy is “the written or oral reproach of God, His name, attributes, or religion.”

 

[Micilin]

Just a new thread as the one with the images makes the font too small.

What puzzles me a little is that the new Charlie cartoon, for example, doesn't explicitly state it is about the prophet Muhammed.

So is the 'blasphemy' actually only in the reader's mind as they make the association?

Or am I missing something?

What blasphemy?

To blaspheme is to speak with contempt about God or to be defiantly irreverent. According to Black's Law Dictionary, blasphemy is “the written or oral reproach of God, His name, attributes, or religion.”

I think blasphemy against a religion is defined by the religion, so therein lies the difficulty of a definition.

 

[RNReindeer]

I think Charlie Hebdo's historical cartoons convince the reader that it could hardly be about anyone else. (and there were many of them)
As the article by ladylola points out, a journalist/cartoonist was fired from Charlie Hebdo for daring to draw a cartoon that could be considered anti-semetic.
Perhaps, it casts a new, possibly more pragmatic, light on the magazine and it's ridicule of Islam.

 

[Micilin]

I think Charlie Hebdo's historical cartoons convince the reader that it could hardly be about anyone else. (and there were many of them)
As the article by ladylola points out, a journalist/cartoonist was fired from Charlie Hebdo for daring to draw a cartoon that could be considered anti-semetic.
Perhaps, it casts a new, possibly more pragmatic, light on the magazine and it's ridicule of Islam.

Yes, it's understood that everyone assumes it is him, and I wouldnt argue otherwise.

But there is nothing inherent in the cartoon itself that says it is, it has grown as a meme.

The article from ladylola and some dicussions elsewhere (in the real world, not here!) explore the right to free speech : that is, the difference between ridiculing something and inciting violence/hatred towards something.

Cartoons must surely fall under the same consideration. However the problem is that one man's ridicule may be anothers hatred?

 

[ladylola]

Cartoons must surely fall under the same consideration. However the problem is that one man's ridicule may be anothers hatred?

And how each of them react of course. A good example is The Life of Brian , not specifically about any one religion but not hard to see what it was referencing . Caused some offence and calls for it to be removed from cinemas but to the best of my knowledge didn't result in mass murder. Different societies do seem to react differently.

 

[Micilin]

Cartoons must surely fall under the same consideration. However the problem is that one man's ridicule may be anothers hatred?

And how each of them react of course. A good example is The Life of Brian , not specifically about any one religion but not hard to see what it was referencing . Caused some offence and calls for it to be removed from cinemas but to the best of my knowledge didn't result in mass murder. Different societies do seem to react differently.

Yes, but what did that film ever do for us?

 

[ladylola]

Nothing,
Well ok it made me laugh
But nothing else
Well maybe appreciate good writing
And acting
And a memorable song
But other than that nothing.

 

[Micilin]

Nothing,
Well ok it made me laugh
But nothing else
Well maybe appreciate good writing
And acting
And a memorable song
But other than that nothing.

 

[jockscott]

Historically, Islam has never prevented images of their prophet from being published or produced. It's a relatively new invention that they are offended by images of the prophet. (shows the power of those at the head of the religion that they can bend people's minds so much)

 

[JBR]

Historically, Islam has never prevented images of their prophet from being published or produced. It's a relatively new invention that they are offended by images of the prophet.

Just like requiring women to cover everything including their faces, and female genital mutilation.

 

[noseall]

Cartoons must surely fall under the same consideration. However the problem is that one man's ridicule may be anothers hatred?

And how each of them react of course. A good example is The Life of Brian , not specifically about any one religion but not hard to see what it was referencing . Caused some offence and calls for it to be removed from cinemas but to the best of my knowledge didn't result in mass murder. Different societies do seem to react differently.

And who can forget Dave Allen....."I'm an atheist, thank God".

 

[Whitespirit66]

Charlie Hebdo has increased its sales from sixty thousand to over three million!

I wonder if they are looking for staff...