< HOME  Monday, February 13, 2006

comparing APPLES to ORANGES

"We don't intend retaliation over the drawings of the prophet. We just want to show that freedom is restricted in the West," said Davood Kazemi . . . executive manager of the contest.
The Iranian Holocaust cartoon contest may be a great exercise to demonstrate how restricted so-called free speech is in the West, but cartoons about the Holocaust are not a helpful comparison to the ones aimed at insulting the prophet Muhammad.

The latter insult a man revered by over a billion people, the vast majority of whom live in peace, minding their own business, while the former questions facts and figures of a historical event continuously brandished politically to exact reparations for its victims.

The former can be triggered either by curiosity, conflicting facts, or a desire to refute accusations; the latter cannot be explained by anything other than contempt and animosity for an entire population who revere the prophet.

Questioning the Holocaust is like questioning how many people were killed in the American civil war, or whether or not slavery truly existed in America (as they describe in textbooks), or who scalped who first, American Indians or Spanish settlers.

True, people are emotionally invested in one particular version of events over another. And, indeed only one version of events can actually be true (only God knows what it is). But, persons who believe different versions need not necessarily hate one another (although they might depending on how much is riding on one version being true).

In contrast, you CANNOT launch a full frontal attack on the founder of a religion without hurling hatred and contempt at his followers. It cannot be explained as an innocuous exercise in free speech or a fair exercise in debating or challenging historical facts.

It's like comparing apples to oranges.


At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

Sorry people, all the comments that were here are now at a haloscan databank.

I'll see if I can get them back on this page shortly.

At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...


South Park in 2001 - aired an episode in which Muhammed was a "super best friend" with the power of fire, who a giant stone Abraham Lincoln swapped with his hand.

No rioting. Nothing. In fact, Islamic art has depicted Muhammed for hundreds of years. I must repeat that this was all orchestrated.

Oh well...I think this story's shelf life is quickly dying. (thank god!)

At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

I never watch South Park. And now that you've mentioned that, I never will.

Yes, it was orchestrated. But, the reason it could be orchestrated is because the cartoons are very offensive, among other offenses Muslims suffer these days.

The REAL question is WHO orchestrated this particularly senseless chain of events - from START to finish?

At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

You seem to refuse to read wikipedia, which well outlines this whole debacle, from start to finish.


Wikipedia well chronicles exactly how the controversy erupted. Best source I have seen. (with various links to back up what it says)

I want to further add that Islamic art has depicted Muhammed for hundreds of years. It is amusing to me that out of the blue, it is considered "blasphemy" to depict Muhammed, when in fact the Metropolitan Museum of Art displays Islamic art dating back to the 15th century which depicts Muhammed.




And there's more when that came from.

Is there now going to be a boycott of the Met, a museum which only is displaying artwork which in fact originated in Iran? Do curators at the Met now have to fear for their lives?

So you can excuse me if I don't find the concept that displaying Muhammed himself is considered blasphemy, when it has gone on for hundreds of years.


Post a Comment

<< Home