TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Jihad on Denmark - freedom of expression rears its ugly head once again...
Pages (18): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 »
No because there are more than enough athiests, Jews, Muslims and people of other faiths. like I said
"There three lies; lies, damn lies and STATISTICS" they don't mean a thing.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lepanto No because there are more than enough athiests, Jews, Muslims and people of other faiths. like I said |
"church" is an all-encompassing term, as in "church vs. state"
| quote: |
| Originally posted by HardTranceProd Jews, Muslims and people of other faiths would be included in the group that worships a god/religion and goes to places of worship. What is not clear about that?? "church" is an all-encompassing term, as in "church vs. state" |
since this was drawn up a long time it was church and church only. furthermore, the study said CHURCH, if you have so much faith in a newspaper that doesn't know how to use the words "place of worship" then i guess that explains alot.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by HardTranceProd It looks Photoshopped to me for some reason. And Groundhog Boy, USA Today is not some joke paper, if they published these stats then they are meaningful. I'm guessing the % of people who never ever attend church in the US is so miniscule that it doesn't figure in their results, otherwise they would've mentioned it. |
| quote: |
| World-wide data: The Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan periodically conducts the World Values Survey. It polls a statistically valid sample of adults from a total of 60 nations. Some of their findings from their 1995-1997 survey: The United States has a higher level of church attendance than any other country which is "at a comparable level of development." 53% of Americans consider religion to be very important in their lives. This compares with 16% in Britain, 14% in France and 13% in Germany. The importance of religion has been declining in developed countries. In those countries which are "experiencing economic stagnation and political uncertainty," the importance of religion is high. Political scientist Ronald Inglehart, one of the authors of the Institute's 1998 survey commented: "Although church attendance is declining in nearly all advanced industrial societies, spiritual concerns more broadly defined are not. In fact, in most industrial societies, a growing share of the population is spending time thinking about the meaning and purpose of life." 1 Percent of adults who attend religious services at least once a week: In order of decreasing attendance: Country % Attendance Nigeria 89% Ireland 84% * Philippines 68% N. Ireland 58% Puerto Rico 52% South Africa 56% Poland 55% Portugal 47% * Slovakia 47% Mexico 46% Italy 45% * Dominican Republic 44% Belgium 44% United States 44% Turkey 43% Peru 43% India 42% Canada 38% * Brazil 36% Netherlands 35% Venezuela 31% Uruguay 31% Austria 30% * Britain 27% * Chile 25% Argentina 25% Spain 25% Solvenia 22% Croatia 22% Hungary 21% * France 21% * Romania 20% * Switzerland 16% Australia 16% Lithuania 16% South Korea 14% W. Germany 14% Czech Republic 14% * Taiwan 11% Bulgaria 10% * Ukraine 10% Moldova 10% Georgia 10% China 9% Armenia 8% Serbia 7% Montenegro 7% Azerbaijan 6% Belarus 6% Latvia 5% Denmark 5% * Norway 5% East Germany 5% Sweden 4% Iceland 4% Finland 4% Estonia 4% Japan 3% Russia 2% * Based on 1990-1991 survey data. These numbers are somewhat suspect. Church attendance data in the U.S. has been checked against actual values using two different techniques. The true figures show that only about 20% of Americans and 10% of Canadians actually go to church one or more times a week. Many Americans and Canadians tell pollsters that they have gone to church even though they have not. Whether this happens in other countries, with different cultures, is difficult to predict. The Institute's 1998 study involved almost 166,000 people. They found that church attendance was in decline in 15 of 19 industrialized democracies. Only two showed small increases: Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Attendance in East Germany continues to decline, having dropped from 20% in 1991 to 9% in 1998. Five of eight ex-communist societies show an increase in church attendance. 2 Attendance at religious services by Americans and Canadians: Item USA Canada Attend at least weekly 43% 20% Never/almost never attend 8% 38% Data is from 1999. 3 For years, pollsters have been asking adult Americans whether they go to church regularly. The results have not changed much over time. Recent estimates of the percentage of adult Americans who claimed to have attended weekly services during the past week are: 38% by the National Opinion Research Center 44% by the Institute for Social Research's World Values survey. This institute is located at the University of Michigan. 4 41% by the Barna Research Group Attendance over the previous week dropped from 49% in 1991 to 41% in 1999 5 40% by National Election Studies. Their poll shows that in 1996, 25% of adult Americans claimed to attend church, synagogue or temple every week; 12% almost every week; 16% once or twice a month, 18% a few times a year, and 30% never. 6 Assuming that "almost every week" means 3 weeks out of 4, then these data indicate 40% attendance. The Gallup Organization measured attendance at 41% during 2001-MAY. 8 The figure of 40% church attendance appears widely in the media. But, two studies have cast a grave doubt on these data: Sociologist Stanley Presser (also of the University of Maryland) completed a study of notes in personal diaries that were written between the mid '60s until the '90s. They found that many Americans were not at church when they claimed to be. Their best estimate is that church attendance was about 26% during that interval. Recent studies have been made of individual counties in both the U.S. and Canada. Researchers counted individuals as they went into church, synagogue, etc. They later interviewed a random sampling of adults in the county. They found that the survey results were inflated by about 100% from the actual attendance figures. Although about 40% of the American adults said that they attended church, the actual value was about 20%. Canadians lied by the same percentage. The only Western Christian country which has a church attendance higher than that of the U.S. is Ireland. More than 90% of adults went to church during the 1960's. A poll by Irish Marketing Surveys released in 1999-DEC, found that only half of the population of the Irish Republic currently attended church weekly. (This is a reduction from about 63% in 1998). 10% went once a month; 5% went on holy days; 13% never went to church at all. A spokesperson for the Archbishop of Dublin blamed the recent reduction on a series of sex scandals by priests in the Roman Catholic church. 7 The next highest church attendance is believed to be Canada where 20% of the adult population say that they go to church weekly. Again, half were lying, as only about 10% actually attend church weekly. Fluctuation in church attendance after the 9-11 terrorist attacks: There was a surge in church attendance after the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington on 2001-SEP-11. Some religious leaders predicted that the phenomenon would be short lived. Others saw it as the start of a major revival in the U.S. According to the New York Times, Franklin Graham, son of the well known Christian evangelist, Rev. Billy Graham, hailed it as an enduring turn toward God. On NOV-20, Fundamentalist Christian Pat Robertson said that the attack was "bringing about one of the greatest spiritual revivals in the history of America...People are turning to God. The churches are full." 8 It appears that, with the exception of the New York City area, the increase lasted only about two months. By NOV-26, attendance had returned to normal. The New York Times cites data from the Gallup Organization, which shows that religious attendance rose from 41% in 2001-MAY to 47% by SEP-21. By early November, attendance had sunk back to 42%. The director of the Center for the Study of Religion at Princeton University, Robert Wuthnow, said that the terrorists' attacks have not changed the basic makeup of the U.S.: About one in four of American adults is devoutly religious; one in four is secular, and the remaining half is mildly interested about religion. Wuthnow said: "We are in some ways a very religious country, especially compared to Western Europe. But we're of two minds, and the other mind is that we really are pretty secular. We are very much a country of consumers and shoppers, and we're quite materialistic. And as long as we can kind of paste together a sense of control through our ordinary work and our ordinary purchases, we're pretty happy to do that." Rabbi Ronald S. Roth of West End Synagogue in Nashville, TN, said: "We did see a larger influx for the holidays, and the mood was very intense. I can't say, however, that this increased interest in services has been sustained...When people face such a tragic and horrible event, they need comfort, they need community, they need to relate to their God and their traditions, and try to find a way to get through the pain. Once I think people got past some of the initial shock and difficulties, they started to get back to how it was before." A poll conducted by Barna Research Group showed no increase in 11 of the 13 key measures of religiosity due to the terrorist attacks. References: 1. Diane Swanbrow, "Study of worldwide rates of religiosity, church attendance," University of Michigan news release at: http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/1997/ 2. Maranatha Christian Journal, "Study: Fewer Americans Seek Spiritual Answers From Church," at: http://www.mcjonline.com/news/00/20000118e.htm 3. Millennium Study by Taylor Nelson Sofres Intersearch. Reviewed by Maranatha Christian Journal for 1999-DEC-13 at: http://www.mcjonline.com/news/news3707.htm Church attendance data at: http://www.intersearch.tnsofres.com/gia/US_Religion.pdf This is an Acrobat PDF file. You can obtain a free software to read these files from Adobe. 4. "Study of worldwide rates of religiosity, church attendance," 1997-DEC-10 at: http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/1997/Dec97/ 5. "Annual survey of America's faith shows no significant changes in past year." See: http://www.barna.org/PressNoSignificantChanges.htm 6. "Church Attendance 1970 - 1996," National Election Studies at: http://www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide/toptables/ 7. "Survey says Irish church attendance at lowest level," CWNews.com, 1999-DEC-18 8. Laurie Goodstein, "As Attacks' Impact Recedes, a Return to Religion as Usual," New York Times, 2001-NOV-26, at: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/26/ |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by trancaholic Some further news. Starting out with the bad ones, Norway has apparently inforced a law against blasphemy.: I guess "Life of Brian", several issues of MAD, the Simpsons, etc. will soon be banned in Norway. Incredible that these guys stood up to the Nazis in WW2. Maybe all the brave and principled Norwegians were wiped out back then, and only the cowards were left to reproduce. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider In an attempt to defuse the Norway allegation somewhat, I've been informed that the actual law in question is Penal code section 142. And while it is a law against blasphemy, the law is a "sleeper" law of sorts that has been on the books since 1902, was last used in 1933 or 1934 (the accused was aquitted), and has never been used since. Is there any confirmation that they plan on enforcing this law from a legitimate media source? No offense to Islam-online ... |
), but probably just changed it from only accounting Christianity to any kind of religion.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider In an attempt to defuse the Norway allegation somewhat, I've been informed that the actual law in question is Penal code section 142. And while it is a law against blasphemy, the law is a "sleeper" law of sorts that has been on the books since 1902, was last used in 1933 or 1934 (the accused was aquitted), and has never been used since. Is there any confirmation that they plan on enforcing this law from a legitimate media source? No offense to Islam-online ... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by trancaholic This is quite interesting - can I ask where you got your information from? |
| quote: |
Wednesday 15 February 2006 Islam Online claim that Norway passed anti-blasphemy legislation bogus Editors�note: We reported 14 hours ago Islam Online�s claim that Norway had passed an anti-blasphemy law with a word of caution, since Judeoscope was unable to confirm the news story independently. Calls to Norvegian diplomats and a review of Norway�s press reveal that if the Nordic country had indeed passed such legislation, its parliament is doing a magnificient job at hiding it from its constituents. It is, however, more likely that the report is tantamount to a propaganda ploy reflecting the wishful thinking of Muslim Brother Yusuf al-Qaradawi and his mouthpiece, Islam Online. Judeoscope.ca - Norway�s Parliament adopted a law criminalizing blashemy, reports Islam Online, the European mouthpiece of Muslim Brotherhood preacher Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. Islam Online quotes Norway�s Deputy Archbishop Oliva Howika as saying that "Law 150-A, which has been approved by parliament, criminalizes blasphemy and clearly prohibits despising others or lampooning religions in any form of expression, including the use of photographs". Howika was speaking to reporters in Doha after a meeting with Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. Al-Qaradawi, in a sermon aired on February 3rd by Qatar TV had called on the Muslim Ummah to "rage in anger" against Danish cartoons of Mohammed and declared Western "governments must be pressured to demand that the U.N. adopt a clear resolution or law that categorically prohibits affronts to prophets" (translation by MEMRI). Al-Qaradawi, one of the most influential Muslim preachers in the world has his own show on Al-Jazeera and is head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research. Judeoscope could not confirm this information independently at the time of publication. http://www.judeoscope.ca/breve.php3?id_breve=0758 |
Ummm wtf is going on in Britain?
| quote: |
Extremist Muslim groups to be banned Alan Travis and Patrick Wintour Thursday February 16, 2006 The Guardian Extremist Muslim groups who "glorify" terrorism are likely to be banned in Britain as early as this summer after Tony Blair yesterday overcame his second backbench rebellion this week to impose new laws designed to clamp down on the celebration of terrorism in speech, placards or on the internet. MPs voted by 327 to 279, a majority of 38, to reinstate the laws banning the glorification of terrorism, a phrase untried in the legal battle against terrorism in Europe or the US. Only 17 Labour backbenchers rebelled yesterday, 10 fewer than the last time MPs debated the issue in November. Two of the prominent groups likely to be banned are Hizb ut-Tahrir and Omar Bakri's al-Muhajiroun, groups already named by Tony Blair. Ministers by convention usually wait two months to implement new legislation but the home secretary, Charles Clarke, is to accelerate this timetable to ensure police and security services can use the new powers as soon as possible. Mr Blair, relieved at navigating three perilous votes on identity cards, smoking and terror, described yesterday's victory as "comprehensive" and "a signal of strength". He said the passage of the law yesterday means that any repeat showing of the kind of offensive placards celebrating the July 7 bombings exhibited at the demonstration a fortnight ago in London will lead to prosecutions. Critics claim existing incitement laws already make such prosecutions possible. Officials are expected to start work on drawing up proscription orders, to be approved by parliament, banning extremist groups who "glorify" terrorism. The legislation also allows successor groups to be banned to overcome the problem of organisations that simply go underground by changing their names. This will extend proscription for the first time in Britain beyond those organisations which are directly involved in terrorist activity. A triumphant Mr Blair claimed the government had won the argument. He said: "The new law will mean that if people are going to start celebrating acts of terrorism or condoning people who engage in terrorism, they will be prosecuted, and if they do not come from this country, they should not be in this country. We have free speech in this country, but you cannot abuse it." He said yesterday's vote represented a vital signal of strength "in circumstances where the threat is not just from the individual acts of terrorism, but the people who try to entice other people or recruit other people into doing it". His aides argued that this week's trio of votes strengthened Mr Blair's hand ahead of a potential showdown over the education bill, due to be published later in the month after the parliamentary recess. They also suggested that it doused speculation that Mr Blair would have to give way to his chancellor, Gordon Brown in the near future. There had been fears, expressed in cabinet last Thursday, that this week could see Commons defeats and a possible ministerial slanging match during the smoking vote. Mr Blair saw his plans for ID cards sail through the Commons on Monday, albeit with concessions. The battle yesterday on terror laws raged both as a broad political trial of strength between the parties in the fight against terrorism, and as an often obscure legal dispute over which wording in the legislation clamped down most effectively on rhetorical encouragement of terrorism. The shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve claimed Mr Blair was staging a fake confrontation, posturing to the world, seeking cheap headlines and then leaving others to clear up the mess he had created. William Hague, standing in for David Cameron at prime ministers questions, accused the government of "press release politics" and "ineffective authoritarianism". The Tories claimed a new criminal offence of indirect encouragement of terrorism was sufficient. Such was the anger on Tory benches that Mr Cameron left the hospital bedside of his wife and newborn son to vote. The home secretary Charles Clarke claimed the Tory backed motion, built round debarring indirect encouragement of terrorism, was too narrow, and drafted to exclude written encouragement of terrorism, including on placards and internet sites. Mr Grieve appeared to accept this by admitting in debate yesterday he could reword the amendment to cover placards and the internet. Mr Clarke also limited the rebellion by repeatedly reassuring backbenchers that the glorification clause would only cover those who clearly and recklessly intend to encourage terrorism. He said the word glorification had appeared clearly in the Labour manifesto, and had been endorsed in a recent UN security council resolution. Mr Clarke added he was willing to review the phrase if Lord Carlile, the government's terror advisor, came up with a fresh definition late this year. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terr...1710761,00.html |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Ummm wtf is going on in Britain? |
Here we go again...
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/m...t.ap/index.html
| quote: |
| Rioters torch Italian consulate, Libyan officials say 11 reported dead or wounded Friday, February 17, 2006 Posted: 2309 GMT (0709 HKT) TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) -- Libyans protesting the Prophet Mohammed cartoons set fire to the Italian consulate in Benghazi on Friday in a riot that left 11 people dead or wounded, Libyan security officials said. An Italian consular official, Antonio Simoes-Concalves, said nine protesters had been killed and several more had been wounded as armed police clashed with a crowd of more than 1,000 demonstrators. Libyan state television showed a part of the consulate building on fire, and firefighters trying to extinguish it. The Italian Foreign Ministry confirmed that the first floor of the building had been set on fire after the crowd charged into the grounds of the consulate late Friday. In a statement in Rome, the ministry said the consulate was being protected by Libyan security forces. Libyan television also showed ambulances taking casualties away from the scene and five cars that were severely damaged in the riot. Security officials said the demonstrators hurled stones and bottles at the consulate, and later entered the grounds and set fire to the building and a consular car. Police fired shots to try to disperse the crowd, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to speak to the press. Simoes-Goncalves told The Associated Press in Rome that the Libyan police were not able to control the crowd, even though they were firing bullets and tear gas. "They are still continually firing," he said at 2100 GMT, speaking on the telephone from inside the consulate where he was holed up. "They haven't managed to block them." He said the rioters had torched four cars in the consulate compound and also broke windows of the building. No Italians inside the compound were injured, the Italian Foreign Ministry said. Italy's ambassador to Libya in Tripoli met late Friday with the Libyan interior minister "who expressed the condemnation of his government for the acts of violence occurring in Benghazi," the Italian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. Numerous riots and demonstrations have occurred across the Muslim world in recent weeks over 12 cartoons on the Prophet Mohammed that first appeared in a Danish newspaper in September. They were republished in many other European newspapers earlier this month. |
Im still quite in shock that its still just protests and the random KFC getting burned down and nothing bigger has occured.
Also Im quite pissed that the US is not taking it as severly as it should...
AND STOP FUCKING WITH THE ITALIANS! Hey Libya sort some shit out...we pretty much brought your oil into europe
| quote: |
| Originally quoted by occrider European Council for Fatwa and Research |
| quote: |
| Originally quoted by occrider We have free speech in this country, but you cannot abuse it |
From The Sun - but might be correct anyway:
| quote: |
| BBC Spooked by al-Qaeda BBC bosses are ready to AXE a �1million episode of hit drama Spooks in which an al-Qaeda terrorist is shot dead � in case it upsets Muslims. Filming the assassination plot for the MI5 drama took four weeks. But actor Shaun Dingwall who plays a renegade Christian gunman, fears he could become a target for fundamentalists if the scene is aired. In the episode, due to be shown later this year, a religious nut played by Shaun, 35, guns down the fanatic on the steps of London�s High Court. But production sources admitted it could be canned. One said: �In the climate of Muslim fury over cartoons, Shaun isn�t sure about it all.� Shaun refused to comment last night. But Sun security adviser Andy McNab urged the BBC to keep the scene. He said: �Self-censorship would be the thin end of the wedge.� Labour MP Stephen Pound added: �Giving terrorists a veto over what is shown on TV is the road to madness. �Al-Qaeda will be objecting to Gardener�s Question Time next. Where does it stop?� A show spokesman said: �Spooks examines numerous threats facing the UK. Producers, along with Shaun, will track the storyline�s sensitivities in light of the ever-changing news agenda.� |
| quote: |
| More and More Moderate Muslims Speak Out in Denmark Dozens of Danish Muslims are joining the network of moderate Muslims, the Demokratiske Muslimer (Democratic Muslims). About 700 Muslims have already become DM members and 2,500 Danes have expressed their will to support the network. The initiative has caused anger among the Danish imams and their leader, Ahmad Abu Laban, who have referred to the moderates as �rats.� The imams feel that they are beginning to lose their control over part of the Muslim population. Moderates such as Kamran Tahmasebi say they have had enough of fanatic Islamism and its intimidation of the Muslim immigrants in Denmark. �It is an irony that I am today living in a European democratic state and have to fight the same religious fanatics that I fled from in Iran many years ago,� Mr Tahmasebi says. He came to Denmark as a refugee in 1989. Today he works as a social consultant and is very grateful for the life Denmark has made it possible for him to have. He says he no longer wants to keep a low profile to avoid attracting the attention of the imams. The cartoon affair was an incentive for him to stand up and warn against the Islamist imams in Denmark, whom he says are damaging the integration process with their misleading criticism of Danish values and norms. Mr Tahmasebi is one of the people involved in the newly established network of moderate Muslims in Denmark led by Naser Khader, a member of the Danish Parliament. He says he is well aware of the risk he is taking by siding with Mr Khader, who has for a long time been living under police protection. But Mr Tahmasebi feels it is his duty to take part in this debate. �Naser Khader has carried this responsibility for too long. I share his beliefs and now I want to stand up and say so. Apart from that, as a parent I feel a responsibility to fight, so that my children will not have to live under Islamist dogmas. They shall be able to live free in this country.� Mr Tahmasebi adds that he believes the imams are one of the biggest problems Denmark is facing today. The Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, will be meeting the leaders of the moderate Muslims today (February 13) to discuss the cartoon affair. The Danish government has suspended all dialogue and cooperation with the Danish imams on the integration process. Some of the strongest protests against the twelve Muhammad cartoons [see them here, halfway down the page] came from imams who are members of the government�s official integration think tank. �We want the newspaper [Jyllands-Posten, which published the cartoons last September] to promise that this will never happen again, or this will never stop,� says imam Ahmad Akkari, the spokesman for the radical Muslim organizations in Denmark which led the protest against the cartoons. However, the deliberate lies which imams, such as Abu Laban and Akkari, used to incite worldwide hatred against Denmark have served as a wake-up call for the Danish government. �I believe it has become obvious that the imams are not the people we should be listening to if we want integration in Denmark to work,� Rikke Hvilsh�j, the Danish Integration Minister, has said. The BBC reports that fifteen Muslim countries, from Algeria to Pakistan, are now boycotting Danish products. So far, nearly 200 jobs have been lost in Denmark and more jobs could be endangered if the boycotts continue. In neighbouring Norway, Vebj�rn Selbekk, the editor of the Christian weekly Magazinet which first published the twelve Muhammad cartoons in his country, apologized for offending Muslims by publishing the cartoons. Mr Selbekk and his family received numerous death threats. He said he regretted publishing the cartoons because of all the strain this has put on himself and others and because the consequences were much more than he had expected. He stressed, however, that he could not apologize for using his freedom of expression by publishing the cartoons. Carsten Juste, the editor of Jyllands-Posten, made the same remark when he apologized for offending Muslims. Last Friday the government of Sweden, another Scandinavian neighbour of Denmark, shut down the website of the newspaper SD-Kuriren because it had posted Muhammad cartoons. Richard Jomshof, the editor of the paper, which is published by the Swedish far-right party the Swedish Democrats, told the BBC: �This is illegal. They can�t do this just because we are a small magazine.� However, the Swedish Foreign Minister, Laila Freivalds, described the publication as a provocation by �a small group of extremists.� A similar view was taken earlier by the Norwegian government when it criticized Magazinet and Mr Selbekk. The question is what the Swedish government would do if the cartoons are published in one or more Swedish newspapers, as has already happened in other European countries. Fanatic imams are not only a problem in Denmark. In Britain Hamid Ali, a leading imam of a mosque in West Yorkshire, hailed last summer�s bombing of the London subway as a �good� action. The imam was secretly taped when he was talking to an undercover reporter from The Sunday Times. His words contrast with the public statements of condemnation by Muslim community leaders � including Mr Ali � after the attacks, which killed 56 people. In other words, the Danish imams are not the only imams in Europe who are speaking with two tongues. Indeed, there are indications that the main culprits for the integration problems are the imams, who tend to be much more extremist than many of the ordinary Muslims. |
^^ Good news, however, the article didn't get it quite right with the part about Sweden It wasn't the goverment that shut it down, it was the web host! If the goverment did indeed shut it down then that would have been illegal, also the statement from our foreign minister were quite put out of context. Two sentences before that she was actually defending the freedom of press and said that the goverment should do nothing about such things. Just fyi 
(Btw, I don't like our foreign minister or goverment at all )
...and going, and going, and going...
| quote: |
| 16 die in cartoon protests in Nigeria Italian minister resigns; his T-shirt blamed for inciting riot Saturday, February 18, 2006; Posted: 5:03 p.m. EST (22:03 GMT) LAGOS, Nigeria (CNN) -- Sixteen people were killed and 11 churches were burned Saturday in Nigeria as part of the continuing violence over cartoons of Islam's Prophet Mohammed. The violence comes a day after at least 10 people were killed in Libya and another in Pakistan, where five deaths have been reported this week. Demonstrations and skirmishes broke out Saturday in the Muslim-dominated northern Nigerian cities of Maiduguri and Katsina. The cities also have significant Christian populations. Maiduguri bore the brunt of Saturday's violence. Fifteen people were killed, 11 churches were burned and 115 people were arrested there, a national police spokesman said. There also were reports of attacks on businesses owned by Christians. In Katsina, one person was killed, two police officers were injured and 25 were arrested, a police spokesman said. The Nigerian army was en route to the region late Saturday to assist police in keeping the peace, and the northern Nigerian state of Borno was considering imposing a curfew. A Danish newspaper first published the cartoons in September, but protests over the caricatures -- one of which depicts the prophet wearing a turban shaped like a bomb -- have escalated in recent weeks after several other publications, mostly European, reprinted the drawings. Muslims consider depictions of Mohammed blasphemous. |
yea what did the Swiss do
few other interesting pictures as I cant read all that much lol
| quote: |
| Originally posted by InterMilan31 |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew ^^ Good news, however, the article didn't get it quite right with the part about Sweden |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono ...and going, and going, and going... These people can't take a joke. |
| quote: |
| Why I Published Those Cartoons Childish. Irresponsible. Hate speech. A provocation just for the sake of provocation. A PR stunt. Critics of 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad I decided to publish in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten have not minced their words. They say that freedom of expression does not imply an endorsement of insulting people's religious feelings, and besides, they add, the media censor themselves every day. So, please do not teach us a lesson about limitless freedom of speech. I agree that the freedom to publish things doesn't mean you publish everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or graphic details of dead bodies; swear words rarely make it into our pages. So we are not fundamentalists in our support for freedom of expression. But the cartoon story is different. Those examples have to do with exercising restraint because of ethical standards and taste; call it editing. By contrast, I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still believe that this is a topic that we Europeans must confront, challenging moderate Muslims to speak out. The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously -- and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter. At the end of September, a Danish standup comedian said in an interview with Jyllands-Posten that he had no problem urinating on the Bible in front of a camera, but he dared not do the same thing with the Koran. This was the culmination of a series of disturbing instances of self-censorship. Last September, a Danish children's writer had trouble finding an illustrator for a book about the life of Muhammad. Three people turned down the job for fear of consequences. The person who finally accepted insisted on anonymity, which in my book is a form of self-censorship. European translators of a critical book about Islam also did not want their names to appear on the book cover beside the name of the author, a Somalia-born Dutch politician who has herself been in hiding. Around the same time, the Tate gallery in London withdrew an installation by the avant-garde artist John Latham depicting the Koran, Bible and Talmud torn to pieces. The museum explained that it did not want to stir things up after the London bombings. (A few months earlier, to avoid offending Muslims, a museum in Goteborg, Sweden, had removed a painting with a sexual motif and a quotation from the Koran.) Finally, at the end of September, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen met with a group of imams, one of whom called on the prime minister to interfere with the press in order to get more positive coverage of Islam. So, over two weeks we witnessed a half-dozen cases of self-censorship, pitting freedom of speech against the fear of confronting issues about Islam. This was a legitimate news story to cover, and Jyllands-Posten decided to do it by adopting the well-known journalistic principle: Show, don't tell. I wrote to members of the association of Danish cartoonists asking them "to draw Muhammad as you see him." We certainly did not ask them to make fun of the prophet. Twelve out of 25 active members responded. We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims. The cartoons do not in any way demonize or stereotype Muslims. In fact, they differ from one another both in the way they depict the prophet and in whom they target. One cartoon makes fun of Jyllands-Posten, portraying its cultural editors as a bunch of reactionary provocateurs. Another suggests that the children's writer who could not find an illustrator for his book went public just to get cheap publicity. A third puts the head of the anti-immigration Danish People's Party in a lineup, as if she is a suspected criminal. One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban -- has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name. The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet. On occasion, Jyllands-Posten has refused to print satirical cartoons of Jesus, but not because it applies a double standard. In fact, the same cartoonist who drew the image of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban drew a cartoon with Jesus on the cross having dollar notes in his eyes and another with the star of David attached to a bomb fuse. There were, however, no embassy burnings or death threats when we published those. Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work "The Open Society and Its Enemies," insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations. I acknowledge that some people have been offended by the publication of the cartoons, and Jyllands-Posten has apologized for that. But we cannot apologize for our right to publish material, even offensive material. You cannot edit a newspaper if you are paralyzed by worries about every possible insult. I am offended by things in the paper every day: transcripts of speeches by Osama bin Laden, photos from Abu Ghraib, people insisting that Israel should be erased from the face of the Earth, people saying the Holocaust never happened. But that does not mean that I would refrain from printing them as long as they fell within the limits of the law and of the newspaper's ethical code. That other editors would make different choices is the essence of pluralism. As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak. The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic. The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants. Since the Sept. 30 publication of the cartoons, we have had a constructive debate in Denmark and Europe about freedom of expression, freedom of religion and respect for immigrants and people's beliefs. Never before have so many Danish Muslims participated in a public dialogue -- in town hall meetings, letters to editors, opinion columns and debates on radio and TV. We have had no anti-Muslim riots, no Muslims fleeing the country and no Muslims committing violence. The radical imams who misinformed their counterparts in the Middle East about the situation for Muslims in Denmark have been marginalized. They no longer speak for the Muslim community in Denmark because moderate Muslims have had the courage to speak out against them. In January, Jyllands-Posten ran three full pages of interviews and photos of moderate Muslims saying no to being represented by the imams. They insist that their faith is compatible with a modern secular democracy. A network of moderate Muslims committed to the constitution has been established, and the anti-immigration People's Party called on its members to differentiate between radical and moderate Muslims, i.e. between Muslims propagating sharia law and Muslims accepting the rule of secular law. The Muslim face of Denmark has changed, and it is becoming clear that this is not a debate between "them" and "us," but between those committed to democracy in Denmark and those who are not. This is the sort of debate that Jyllands-Posten had hoped to generate when it chose to test the limits of self-censorship by calling on cartoonists to challenge a Muslim taboo. Did we achieve our purpose? Yes and no. Some of the spirited defenses of our freedom of expression have been inspiring. But tragic demonstrations throughout the Middle East and Asia were not what we anticipated, much less desired. Moreover, the newspaper has received 104 registered threats, 10 people have been arrested, cartoonists have been forced into hiding because of threats against their lives and Jyllands-Posten's headquarters have been evacuated several times due to bomb threats. This is hardly a climate for easing self-censorship. Still, I think the cartoons now have a place in two separate narratives, one in Europe and one in the Middle East. In the words of the Somali-born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the integration of Muslims into European societies has been sped up by 300 years due to the cartoons; perhaps we do not need to fight the battle for the Enlightenment all over again in Europe. The narrative in the Middle East is more complex, but that has very little to do with the cartoons. |
| quote: |
| When fear cows the media THE PHOENIX is Boston's leading ''alternative" newspaper, the kind of brash, pull-no-punches weekly that might have been expected to print without hesitation the Mohammed cartoons that Islamists have been using to incite rage and riots across the Muslim world. Its willingness to push the envelope was memorably demonstrated in 2002, when it broke with most media to publish a grisly photograph of Daniel Pearl's severed head, and supplied a link on its website to the sickening video of the Wall Street Journal reporter's beheading. But the Phoenix isn't publishing the Mohammed drawings, and in a brutally candid editorial it explained why. ''Our primary reason," the editors confessed, is ''fear of retaliation from . . . bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do . . . Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and . . . could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy. As we feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure, this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year-publishing history." The vast majority of US media outlets have shied away from reproducing the drawings, but to my knowledge only the Phoenix has been honest enough to admit that it is capitulating to fear. Many of the others have published high-minded editorials and columns about the importance of ''restraint" and ''sensitivity" and not giving ''offense" to Muslims. Several have claimed they wouldn't print the Danish cartoons for the same reason they wouldn't print overtly racist or anti-Semitic material. The managing editor for news of The Oregonian, for example, told her paper's ombudsman that not running the images is like avoiding the N-word -- readers don't need to see a racial slur spelled out to understand its impact. Yet a Nexis search turns up at least 14 occasions since 1999 when The Oregonian has published the N-word unfiltered. So there are times when it is appropriate to run material that some may find offensive. Rationalizations notwithstanding, the refusal of the US media to show the images at the heart of one of the most urgent stories of the day is not about restraint and good taste. It's about fear. Editors and publishers are afraid the thugs will target them as they targeted Danny Pearl and Theo van Gogh; afraid the mob will firebomb their newsrooms as it has firebombed Danish embassies. ''We will not accept less than severing the heads of those responsible," an imam in Gaza preaches. ''Whoever insults a prophet, kill him," reads the sign carried by a demonstrator in London. Those are not figures of speech but deadly threats, and American newspapers and networks are intimidated. Not everyone has succumbed. The Weekly Standard reproduced the 12 cartoons, and some have appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the New York Sun, and even Spare Change News, a Boston biweekly sold by homeless people. But there has been nothing like the defiance shown in Europe, where some two dozen publications in 13 countries have run the cartoons, insisting that they will not allow thugs to decide what a free press can publish. Journalists can be incredibly brave, but when it comes to covering the Arab and Muslim world, too many news organizations have knuckled under to threats. Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, a veteran foreign correspondent, admitted long ago that ''physical intimidation" by the PLO led reporters to skew their coverage of important stories or to ignore them ''out of fear." Similarly, CNN's former news executive, Jordan Eason, acknowledged after the fall of Saddam Hussein that his network had long sanitized its news from Iraq, since reporting the unvarnished truth ''would have jeopardized the lives of . . . our Baghdad staff." Like the Nazis in the 1930s and the Soviet communists in the Cold War, the Islamofascists are emboldened by appeasement and submissiveness. Give the rampagers and book-burners a veto over artistic and editorial decisions, and you end up not with heightened sensitivity and cultural respect, but with more rampages and more books burned. You betray ideals that generations of Americans have died to defend. And worse than that: You betray as well the dissidents and reformers within the Islamic world, the Muslim Sakharovs and Sharanskys and Havels who yearn for the free, tolerant, and democratic culture that we in the West take for granted. What they want to see from America is not appeasement and apologies and a dread of giving offense. They want to see us face down the fanatics, be unintimidated by bullies. They want to know that in the global struggle against Islamist extremism, we won't let them down. |
The million dollar question is for the MSM is, why the Abu Ghraib photos, but not the Mohammed Cartoons?
(several links within the article below)
| quote: |
Judith Apter Klinghoffer MSM RUSHES TO SHOW MORE ABU GHRAIB PICTURES/ update If you thought that maybe, just maybe, the MSM (mainstream media) is reluctant to publish the Muhammad Cartoons because it does not wish to put American soldiers in harm's way, think again. They just laid their hands on some old (but, yet, unpublished) photos of the infamous prison scandal and, lo and behold, they are rushing to show them. No, the MS has not just surrendered to the Islamists, they have emerged as their best allies. Please, please, phone, email, send letters, cancel subscriptions. Do something (non violent, of course) to show your displeasure. BBC news this evening tried to have its cake and eat it too. It began the broadcast with the newly released pictures AND some of the old. Then, the anchor interviewed the Austalian Olivia Rousset, who got it from her "contacts" in Iraq. He asked her what was the news value of showing these photos given the fact that they are years old and that the guilty have been punished. Wasn't it just pouring oil on fire? She said something about insufficient accounting of higher ups. All the while, the picures remained on the screen. They were rebroadcast at the end. The entire treatment was reminiscent of the Janet Jackson episode when the TV was showing over and over the "wardrob malfunction." Please, click here and let them have a piece of your mind. To complain to CNN, email: [email protected][/email] ACLU also released new photos it attained throught the freedom of information act today. They want another investigation but claimed they are not behind the ones released in Australia. Just a coincidence. Defense complains it will cause additional violence. ACLU Contact information: John Heffernan, 202-728-5335, ext 304, [email protected] They are also suing Rumsfeld. The New York Times was not bad this morning. It merely printed one picture in the inside page. The Financial Times, on the other hand, put a disgusting photo up on the front page. (email: [email][email protected] London fax: 44 (0)20 7873 5938 NY fax: 1 212 641 6504 Again, unlike the cartoons these photos lack news value and serve merely to inflame. Michelle Malkin raises questions but LGF concludes The Media are the Enemy Kudos to FDD for posting the Saddam torture tapes. Perhaps we should send them to the MSM to suggest they can post them? To read a public letter send by a jounalist to Australian SBS TV challenging their publicizing Abu Ghraib pictures but failing to show the cartoons, click here |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r (several links within the article below) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r The million dollar question is for the MSM is, why the Abu Ghraib photos, but not the Mohammed Cartoons? (several links within the article below) >>Source<< |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider From my understanding, Slate had the pictures long ago but hesitated to publish the pictures based upon the arguments put forth by the Department of the Defense. However, once the Australian news agency published the pictures it became an issue of public record. In a similar fashion the NY Times knew of the wiretapping scandal a year before it was published, however they were convinced not to publish by Bush personally. Yet when the book was due to be released, they had no other choice than to come forward with the story. |
| quote: |
So are you suggesting a news agency not hold back on a story no matter the sensitivity of the information? Because with respect to the NY Times story they did (which I disagree with) ... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Yet they'll publish the Abu Ghraib pics with no thought of endangering the lives of the soldiers involved... ...but have no qualms about showing Kane West dressed as Jesus or reporting an art show that shows The Virgin Mary covered in dung. There's an inherit religious hypocracy within the MSM that have no problems printing/showing blasphemous Christian stories but when it comes to Muslims, it scares the shit out of them and then claim the liberal line of "tolerance" and "understanding"... |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.