Are you offended?

Jazzy

http://pix.sparky-s.ie/98a16.jpg.html

is this an offensive image? this is from south park which was originally aired on 4th July 2001. There wasnt much said at all about it then, but this is the current 'hot topic' in entertainment for the past week so Im interested in knowing what every day muslims think.

personally, I think the whole issue is being taken up by people who just want to be offended. people that use that apparant 'offence' as a reason to be selfish and judge other people, to raise themselves on a platform that is above others. this happens across all walks of life in my experience and I dont think this is much different to the Andrew Sachs thing a while back with Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross. A bunch of people looking to be offended just so they can show how much better then they are with a 'proper' way to behave.

ill leave you with this, which I thought was both funny and accurate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4

Zombrex

I'm not Islamic, but in fairness to Muslims the objections were over Mohammad being displayed in a very negative light.

Not saying they were right, or that that is even what was being done (the cartoonist says he was making a point about Islam not Mohammad himself).

Just pointing out that it is a bit inaccurate to say that the big objection was to simply displaying Mohammad, something that is some what missed here in the West.

Jazzy

but mohammed wasnt in the bear suit, santa was

hivizman

Jazzy wrote: »

but mohammed wasnt in the bear suit, santa was

You should have posted this as a spoiler - I haven't seen this week's episode of "South Park" yet, and I'm sure that there are many others in the same position. :mad:

oceanclub

Isn't the irony of South Park that they actually portray Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha as a nice bunch of guys? (Super best friends even!) It's just their followers that get slagged off. So it kinda proves their point when said followers get worked up.

P.

wes

Well, I can't say I was personally offened in the case of the South Park things. When they showed him back in 2001 in the Super Friends, I taught it was a bit of fun.

I have yet to see the latest episodes, and I only tend to catch South Park on the Comedy Central repeats, so I tend to be pretty behind on there latest episodes, but I think even if people are offended, they need to voice this in a peaceful manner, but at the end of the day South Park is a cartoon, and the portrayals of Muhammad pbuh, were actually in a good light, at least in the one I seen.

Personally, if someone offends you, I have always founds the best policy was to either ignore them, or fire back with something that offends them if they are especially persistent.

Jazzy

oh right, the mod has completely ruined the point of my post

yeah one thing sp always gets right is showing people as nice guys. look at jimmy and timmy, the two handicapped kids. they are popular with the rest of the guys and everyone likes them. the other kids dont associate them with difference, its the audience at home that do that. its the same with this tbh, its all on the audience and their choice. do they choose to get offended? if so, why?

The Recliner

Jazzy wrote: »

oh right, the mod has completely ruined the point of my post

Jazzy the picture is still there is people choose to look at it

I request that you remove the picture from your Sig as it is antagonistic in this forum, if you post again in this forum with that picture displaying in your sig you will be banned

Jazzy

why has it become an issue now though? the episode in the picture was shown back in 2001 and no1 said anything there. it was barely a blip on the radar. I think people are just using this issue in another way to attack those who are 'ignorant' and put themselves in a morally justifiable position. It just seems to be another weapon to use for those that want to spread hate

The Recliner

Jazzy wrote: »

why has it become an issue now though? the episode in the picture was shown back in 2001 and no1 said anything there. it was barely a blip on the radar. I think people are just using this issue in another way to attack those who are 'ignorant' and put themselves in a morally justifiable position. It just seems to be another weapon to use for those that want to spread hate

I have no idea, I haven't seen either episode of South Park, must watch more of it actually

As you said people are just using it to make a point, same old, same old

ChocolateSauce

What I find deeply offensive is the decision to censor. I'd say more, but it would enter the realm of political opinion.

wes

I taught the following blog post by Glenn Greenwald on Salon was interesting, and highlighting other instances of censorship in the US, when various people made threats:

From Salon.com: The New York Times' Muslim problem

Ross Douthat, The New York Times, today:

In a way, the muzzling of "South Park" is no more disquieting than any other example of Western institutions' cowering before the threat of Islamist violence. . . . But there's still a sense in which the "South Park" case is particularly illuminating. . . . t's a reminder that Islam is just about the only place where we draw any lines at all. . . .Our culture has few taboos that can’t be violated, and our establishment has largely given up on setting standards in the first place. Except where Islam is concerned.

The New York Times, March 28, 2010:

A Texas university class production of "Corpus Christi," by Terrence McNally, below, has been canceled by college officials citing "safety and security concerns for the students" as well as the need to maintain an orderly academic environment, The Austin Chronicle reported. "Corpus Christi," Mr. McNally’s 1998 play depicting a gay Jesus figure, was scheduled to be performed on Saturday as part of a directing class at Tarleton State University in Stephenville, Tex. But early on Friday, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst condemned the performance, saying in a press release that "no one should have the right to use government funds or institutions to portray acts that are morally reprehensible to the vast majority of Americans." Although Tarleton's president, F. Dominic Dottavio, first defended the students' right to perform a play he considered "offensive, crude and irreverent," university officials changed course late Friday night, canceling the performance after receiving threatening calls and e-mail messages, according to The Star-Telegram.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram, April 8, 2010 (h/t Queerty):

A Fort Worth theater that had agreed to show a student-directed play with a gay Jesus character has withdrawn its offer. The board of directors of Artes de la Rosa, which runs The Rose Marine Theater on North Main Street, decided Thursday against offering the venue for the production of Corpus Christi, just one day after saying it would. A March performance set for a directing class at Tarleton State University in Stephenville was abruptly canceled after the school received threatening emails.

It looks like Ross Douthat picked the wrong month to try to pretend that threat-induced censorship is a uniquely Islamic practice. Corpus Christi is the same play that was scheduled and then canceled (and then re-scheduled) by the Manhattan Theater Club back in 1998 as a result of "anonymous telephone threats to burn down the theater, kill the staff, and 'exterminate' McNally." Both back then and now, leading the protests (though not the threats) was the Catholic League, denouncing the play as "blasphemous hate speech."

Click here for full article

Certainly interesting to see that this sort of thing is actually a lot more common that I would have taught.

Freemasonry

Not really, soon the non believers will rot in hell. Then I'll laugh, so till then, let them have their fun.

oceanclub

Freemasonry wrote: »

Not really, soon the non believers will rot in hell. Then I'll laugh, so till then, let them have their fun.

It's great that religion inspires such love in your fellow man.

P.

Freemasonry

oceanclub wrote: »

It's great that religion inspires such love in your fellow man.

P.

Go read the edited bible, infact go edit it again just for the gags.

The Recliner

Freemasonry wrote: »

Not really, soon the non believers will rot in hell. Then I'll laugh, so till then, let them have their fun.

Freemasonry wrote: »

Go read the edited bible, infact go edit it again just for the gags.

Tolerance is something that every religion preaches I imagine

Learn some before posting here again or you will soon lost the right to post

oceanclub

Freemasonry wrote: »

Go read the edited bible, infact go edit it again just for the gags.

What's the Bible got to do with me?

P.

Freemasonry

The Recliner wrote: »

Tolerance is something that every religion preaches I imagine

Learn some before posting here again or you will soon lost the right to post

The mod is not muslim

The Recliner

Freemasonry wrote: »

The mod is not muslim

That is off topic for this thread but anyway

And the problem with that is what? it has no impact on my implementing the charter

Aside from that my Co-Mod is Muslim

Jazzy

Freemasonry wrote: »

Not really, soon the non believers will rot in hell. Then I'll laugh, so till then, let them have their fun.

didnt you hear? God is a gas

hivizman

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

What I find deeply offensive is the decision to censor. I'd say more, but it would enter the realm of political opinion.

I was disappointed that Comedy Central did not broadcast South Park episode #201 last Friday (23 April 2010), but instead re-ran episodes from earlier in the current series. So the episode was doubly, if not triply, censored, first by South Park's creators (where the "censorship" may have been a deliberate parodying of the terror of "causing offence"), then by Comedy Central prior to broadcast in the USA last week, and now by Comedy Central UK in not showing the episode in the UK.

For those interested in some relevant reading about the ways in which attitudes have changed over the past 20 years to "causing offence", I recommend Kenan Malik's From Fatwa to Jihad: The Rushdie Affair and its Legacy (Atlantic Books: 2010), which discusses how attitudes to freedom of speech and tolerance have changed since the publication of The Satanic Verses.

irishconvert

Freemasonry wrote: »

Not really, soon the non believers will rot in hell. Then I'll laugh, so till then, let them have their fun.

I'm glad I didn't run into you when I was considering converting to Islam. I would have run a mile. Knock it off.

ChocolateSauce

The Recliner wrote: »

Tolerance is something that every religion preaches I imagine

..................................are you joking?

The Recliner

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

..................................are you joking?

I didn't say they practised it

but it is mentioned in most religions literature

Jazzy

The Recliner wrote: »

but it is mentioned in most religions literature

heck no. its all about trying to convert ppl to the said religion its promoting. come into the light of god and ye shall be forgiven and the like. its like advertising.. "You use Daz but please be tolerant of Bold" - that just wouldnt work. its more like "Daz is way better then Bold, you have to use Daz"