Cartoon exhibition cancelled in London

[dejongj]

So this was going to take place next month but the owners of the gallery pulled out after counter terrorism police informed them it could be seen as offensive and a risk to the general public.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...ancelled-in-london/ar-BBlY929?ocid=spartandhp

I think it is the sensible thing to do, an ultimately the gallery owners can do what they want. Yet for part of me it just doesn't feel right, sure some may not like it, but violence in response and then cancelling to avoid such reaction just doesn't feel right.

I hear what Mr Mughal from MAMA comments on this, but can't help but feel that his view is very one-sided, if anything it has done in my opinion exactly the opposite to his cause. Surely people who don't want to see picture of Mohammed don't go to the exhibition and we can all live in harmony.

PS. Don't look at the comments on that article it is the usual drivel, what did make me laugh was reminding a comment by Phil that racist can't spell. Hmm yes, considering the commentators think of themselves as British that definitely holds true

 

[Laudrup]

Islam isn't a race. Giving in to whoever threatens you with a gun shouldn't be the position in the UK. The event should go ahead.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Islam isn't a race. Giving in to whoever threatens you with a gun shouldn't be the position in the UK. The event should go ahead.

x2 but in the interest of public safety as some of them have been proven to get very murderist like over such things I can see why they cancelled it.

I am against bending overbackwards to accommodate any specific pressure group, but I am also against going out of the way to antagonize specific pressure groups.

 

[dejongj]

x2 but in the interest of public safety as some of them have been proven to get very murderist like over such things I can see why they cancelled it.

I am against bending overbackwards to accommodate any specific pressure group, but I am also against going out of the way to antagonize specific pressure groups.

I'm very much in two minds about this. Cancelling without addressing the issue that there maybe groups who will deploy violence just doesn't feel right. But then again what do you do when it actually hasn't happened.

I think the question to be asked is whether there any benefit in displaying a exhibition like this.

 

[Laudrup]

These fundamentalists would kill you for drawing a picture, and we are giving in to that? The Texans shot the terrorists dead in their tracks when they tried it earlier this year.

 

[dejongj]

To be fair the article is not conclusive whether "we" gave in, or whether the "gallery owner" decided to give in.

If I am honest, I think I would have done the same. I think I would have preferred it if the counter terrorism team suggested that they will have their protection.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Turn it on it's head for a moment: Charlie Hebdo was like the spotty teachers pet kid poking the class bully with a stick, then hiding behind the teacher expecting to be protected. Eventually, as you would expect, the bully that was being deliberately provoked found a way to hurt their protagonist.

No-one would bother drawing cartoons of Mohammed if they didn't think it could provoke a response, would they? Should it go ahead then? Only if one values the right of some to show their disdain for the things that are obviously very important to others. Freedom requires wisdom.

 

[SFTPhotography]

The danger is these cartoons is they serve no huge purpose other than to antagonise. They are not very humorous to be honest and I cannot imagine they draw a huge amount of commerical popularity. They serve the danger of disenfranchising normal, non militant, moderate muslims and why bother to antagonise them. Whilst we should not bend over backwards to accomodate an IMHO alien faith, we shouldn't go out of our way to antagonise its practicioners anyway.


Of all the art work a gallery could show, why show this rubbish?

 

[gramps]

Just deliberately antagonistic apart from presenting an obvious security risk.
Why is it necessary to deliberately antagonize someone by degrading what they consider to be sacred?
Islamic terrorism is appalling and deserves to be rejected but the average Muslim is a a law-abiding citizen with good family and social values ... would you deliberately abuse your neighbour just because you can?

 

[dejongj]

The danger is these cartoons is they serve no huge purpose other than to antagonise. They are not very humorous to be honest and I cannot imagine they draw a huge amount of commerical popularity. They serve the danger of disenfranchising normal, non militant, moderate muslims and why bother to antagonise them. Whilst we should not bend over backwards to accomodate an IMHO alien faith, we shouldn't go out of our way to antagonise its practicioners anyway.


Of all the art work a gallery could show, why show this rubbish?

Oh some were very very good and very clever. I especially like the one in the relation to the ban of the burka. It was great. The context is that everyone was game, it wasn't exclusive to a particular group. The danger for society is when one particular group excludes themselves.

 

[dejongj]

Just deliberately antagonistic apart from presenting an obvious security risk.
Why is it necessary to deliberately antagonize someone by degrading what they consider to be sacred?
Islamic terrorism is appalling and deserves to be rejected but the average Muslim is a a law-abiding citizen with good family and social values ... would you deliberately abuse your neighbour just because you can?

They don't have to go to the gallery? Sure if you, or I, were to hang it on the garden shed in view of our Muslim neighbour then you've got a point. But I don't think we should shy away from imagery of important historical figures.

 

[gramps]

They don't have to go to the gallery? Sure if you, or I, were to hang it on the garden shed in view of our Muslim neighbour then you've got a point. But I don't think we should shy away from imagery of important historical figures.

Indeed they don't and doubtless they wouldn't but is it necessary to display them anyway?
What is the purpose other than to say, effectively, "Stuff you we're going to offend you just because we can".
What is so important about displaying these cartoons of the historical figure?

 

[dejongj]

Indeed they don't and doubtless they wouldn't but is it necessary to display them anyway?
What is the purpose other than to say, effectively, "Stuff you we're going to offend you just because we can".
What is so important about displaying these cartoons of the historical figure?

Are you seriously suggesting it is not important to know the worlds history? Besides if they are original cartoons it is an art form like any other.

Many so many things I don't like but I don't go around shooting people. Stupid religions with their man made silly rules.

 

[gramps]

Are you seriously suggesting it is not important to know the worlds history? Besides if they are original cartoons it is an art form like any other.

Many so many things I don't like but I don't go around shooting people. Stupid religions with their man made silly rules.

Of course I am not suggesting it's not important to know the world's history ... in what way do these cartoons enhance knowledge of world history?
Most Muslims don't go around shooting people, on the contrary they are generally welcoming, polite and peaceful people.
"stupid religions" is merely an indication of intolerance ... the claim made against the Muslim extremists!
Of course it could be that this exhibition was a genuine attempt to educate people about world history ... but if you believe that ...!

 

[SFTPhotography]

Oh some were very very good and very clever. I especially like the one in the relation to the ban of the burka. It was great. The context is that everyone was game, it wasn't exclusive to a particular. The danger for society is when one particular group excludes themselves.

I think Burkhas should be banned. They are oppressive and a security risk. They are a custom and not an absolute belief of that religion. But drawing cartoons and mocking the faith needlessly is silly. Taking pro-active steps to minimise its impact, spreading and influence on western european life is wise and good but silly exercises like this do little to assist that worthy cause.

 

[viv1969]

I take offence at every proselytising god botherer who knocks on my door of a weekend to "spread their word", and apparently none of them can read.

I air my feelings to them regarding their presence, they leave. Doesn't stop them coming back in a few weeks.

My point is that anyone likely to take offence at these cartoons is free to avoid the exhibition, but sadly they make a point of visiting and then beating their chests about it; which serves as much purpose as me following the god botherers around town and voicing my displeasure at their presence on someone elses drive.

I find religion. ..any religion. ..as legitimate a target for humour as any other subject.

 

[dejongj]

I think Burkhas should be banned. They are oppressive and a security risk. They are a custom and not an absolute belief of that religion. But drawing cartoons and mocking the faith needlessly is silly. Taking pro-active steps to minimise its impact, spreading and influence on western european life is wise and good but silly exercises like this do little to assist that worthy cause.

But every other religion is subject to satire as well. That is the point, this is not something exclusive about Muslims. It is not restricted to one religion. It is not anti-Muslim, it is merely a form of expression.

 

[dejongj]

Of course I am not suggesting it's not important to know the world's history ... in what way do these cartoons enhance knowledge of world history?
Most Muslims don't go around shooting people, on the contrary they are generally welcoming, polite and peaceful people.
"stupid religions" is merely an indication of intolerance ... the claim made against the Muslim extremists!
Of course it could be that this exhibition was a genuine attempt to educate people about world history ... but if you believe that ...!

Right please do correct me, you are now saying that I am intolerant because I don't agree with violence over an image of an alleged prophet? Please do tell me I've got that wrong.

 

[Phil V]

But every other religion is subject to satire as well. That is the point, this is not something exclusive about Muslims. It is not restricted to one religion. It is not anti-Muslim, it is merely a form of expression.

This,^ we have to remember that Islam is a fairly young religion in the grand scheme of things, and as such a lot of its followers haven't learned tolerance for people with opposing viewpoints.

The only way that situation can change is from people challenging them, there were times when we'd have been tortured for heresy if we mocked Christianity or Judaism, but they grew out of it when they realised their viewpoint was untenable.

If we accept their stance that their faith isn't to be mocked, we put freedom of speech back hundreds of years. Satire is a credible tool to deal with bullies and has been doing so successfully for hundreds of years, let's not stand aside and let that freedom disappear.

 

[fracster]

Extremes of any religion or politics are unsavoury to say the least. Be that right wing,left wing,Islam,Christianity or Judaism,whatever. The vast majority of people who follow any religion are perfectly sane,normal,tolerant people. Unfortunately, the minority of assholes who take them to extremes tar the whole majority.

 

[gramps]

Right please do correct me, you are now saying that I am intolerant because I don't agree with violence over an image of an alleged prophet? Please do tell me I've got that wrong.

You've got that wrong ... re-read my post.

 

[SFTPhotography]

But every other religion is subject to satire as well. That is the point, this is not something exclusive about Muslims. It is not restricted to one religion. It is not anti-Muslim, it is merely a form of expression.

Well, in that case...maybe. I wouldn't give Islam the time of day, either in a good or negative way. Surely we have better artwork to exhibit than this. To me Islam should be an irrelvance in western europe, not a talking point.

What about some fine art photography.

 

[viv1969]

Well, in that case...maybe. I wouldn't give Islam the time of day, either in a good or negative way. Surely we have better artwork to exhibit than this. To me Islam should be an irrelvance in western europe, not a talking point.

What about some fine art photography.

In that case, christianity and Judaism should also be irrelevant given their origin, should they not?

 

[SFTPhotography]

In that case, christianity and Judaism should also be irrelevant given their origin, should they not?

You could say that but like it or not, they are the basis of western civilisation. Islam has been imported through unprecedented levels of immigration since the rise and fall of the Roman Empire.

All but the most extreme takes of Christianity have evolved to fit to western life, Islam and the customs that come with it really are at odds with it.

I wouldn't give Islam the time of day, we surely have better things to exhibit than this

 

[viv1969]

Make up your mind Steve.
Is Christianity the basis for western life, or has it adapted to fit?
Christianity was not chosen, it was enforced, violently at times.
Ringing any bells?

Christianity didn't adapt, it declined, as it continues to do, as people realise they need no such crutch.
Less and less church attendences (to the point where churches are closing and being sold off), ans changes to to things like court oaths, school assemblies etc. which no longer include religious reference. It's dying a death.

Islam will eventually go the same way, it's just lagging rather far behind.

 

[dejongj]

You've got that wrong ... re-read my post.

I've done that several times already I don't come to another conclusion. However I'm glad to hear I am wrong :god:

Well, in that case...maybe. I wouldn't give Islam the time of day, either in a good or negative way. Surely we have better artwork to exhibit than this. To me Islam should be an irrelvance in western europe, not a talking point.

What about some fine art photography.

Well other than that you do for yourself, what determines better artwork. There is plenty in the National Gallery that I think is s***, or in the Tate Modern, or in the Tate, or in plenty a smaller gallery. It is an irrelevance other than to yourself whether you like it or not.

 

[dejongj]

Make up your mind Steve.
Is Christianity the basis for western life, or has it adapted to fit?
Christianity was not chosen, it was enforced, violently at times.
Ringing any bells?

Christianity didn't adapt, it declined, as it continues to do, as people realise they need no such crutch.
Less and less church attendences (to the point where churches are closing and being sold off), ans changes to to things like court oaths, school assemblies etc. which no longer include religious reference. It's dying a death.

Islam will eventually go the same way, it's just lagging rather far behind.

Indeed, and the weapons, travel, and news distribution is much better these days. Give it enough time and people will question. Although the concern, and I do share that concern to a degree, is that it is still growing, and often heavily linked to cultural behaviours.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Probably to be fair it's adapted to fit, however it's teachings and rules of conduct are far more inclusive and kind than those of Islam.

I fully support the Slovenian approach. If only all EU did this I'd become a europhile.

I'll also add that Islam in recent times has been spread by the sword, Christianity by missionaries but even when the church was at it's most powerful it never was such an oppressive force than Islam is today.

The rigorous nature of practicing Islam as opposed to Christianity means it's a more consuming/extreme faith and with customs that come with it make it far less away to fit into western culture.

However in saying all this, I just don't see a point in going out of our way to antagonise Muslims, it gives them a platform to pontificate they get a bad deal and radicalise others. Best to give them nothing, other than total indifference.

 

[Phil V]

Probably to be fair it's adapted to fit, however it's teachings and rules of conduct are far more inclusive and kind than those of Islam.

I fully support the Slovenian approach. If only all EU did this I'd become a europhile.

I'll also add that Islam in recent times has been spread by the sword, Christianity by missionaries but even when the church was at it's most powerful it never was such an oppressive force than Islam is today.

The rigorous nature of practicing Islam as opposed to Christianity means it's a more consuming/extreme faith and with customs that come with it make it far less away to fit into western culture.

However in saying all this, I just don't see a point in going out of our way to antagonise Muslims, it gives them a platform to pontificate they get a bad deal and radicalise others. Best to give them nothing, other than total indifference.

I really wish you wouldn't do this Steve.
Your knowledge of religious history is not much more than non-existent, your view of 'Christianity' as if the Christian faith had existed in its current state (in Britain) for 2000 years is honestly laughable. There's currently Christians behaving almost as badly as Muslims in the name of 'god' all over Africa, and even in the 'most civilised' country in the world there are still religious nut cases bombing abortion clinics. The KKK (a Christian organisation) were a genuine force for evil right into your lifetime.

Delve into history and you'll find Christians responsible for ethnic cleansing all over the world, or study the bible and find Gods word on exactly why that can be justified in His name.

It'd be easy for you to study Christianity if you want to get involved, or just stay away from debating these issues.

 

[SFTPhotography]

I really wish you wouldn't do this Steve.
Your knowledge of religious history is not much more than non-existent, your view of 'Christianity' as if the Christian faith had existed in its current state (in Britain) for 2000 years is honestly laughable. There's currently Christians behaving almost as badly as Muslims in the name of 'god' all over Africa, and even in the 'most civilised' country in the world there are still religious nut cases bombing abortion clinics. The KKK (a Christian organisation) were a genuine force for evil right into your lifetime.
It'd be easy for you to study Christianity if you want to get involved, or just stay away from debating these issues.
Delve into history and you'll find Christians responsible for ethnic cleansing all over the world, or study the bible and find Gods word on exactly why that can be justified in His name.

So right here, right now, in Western Europe can you please tell me which religion is the underlying reason for terrorism and which one proclaims hatred over our life style. You just have to pick one.

What goes on in Africa doesn't bother me, whats happening in Western Europe does.

 

[Phil V]

So right here, right now, in Western Europe can you please tell me which religion is the underlying reason for terrorism and which one proclaims hatred over our life style. You just have to pick one.

What goes on in Africa doesn't bother me, whats happening in Western Europe does.

Just because your media is telling you what's happening on your doorstep, it doesn't mean your religion isn't responsible for just as much murder and mayhem, and like I say, it's not just historic, and it's not a million miles away either.

Ok I'll humour you, how many people have been killed by Muslim terrorists in Western Europe in the last 5 years, and how many by Christian terrorists? The numbers would take some finding, but now you're thinking about it, you're realising that they're not too dissimilar.

Which is always my point Steve, it's easy for you to be appalled at what your right wing press is feeding you, it takes a little more intelligence to do research and find the whole truth.

I'd have sympathy with your stance against Muslim extremists, if you could just accept that they're not the only nutters out there,many they're not what is wrecking your country.

 

[dejongj]

So right here, right now, in Western Europe can you please tell me which religion is the underlying reason for terrorism and which one proclaims hatred over our life style. You just have to pick one.

What goes on in Africa doesn't bother me, whats happening in Western Europe does.

I see it more as an excuse than underlying reason. I think extremist would be extremist anyway and would find something else to hang their hat on

I mean unless I am mistaken many more Muslims have be killed as part of Muslim extremism than anyone else. Heck if I am to believe the stats many more Muslims have killed Muslims in recent time than the overreaction from Israel which gets more coverage. As such how can it be representative for its faith. No, I don't believe that it is representative and the underlying reason at all.

 

[viv1969]

I can tell you that VERY recently, and in the name of Christianity, a teenaged girl was gang raped, and then had her eyes gouged out by her own sister -on the instruction of their pastor - because it was believed she was posessed by the devil.

Extremists come in all kinds of guises the world over and have one thing in common. ..religion.
Mindless, gullible and ignorant belief in fairy tales.

 

[gramps]

There's currently Christians behaving almost as badly as Muslims in the name of 'god' all over Africa, and even in the 'most civilised' country in the world there are still religious nut cases bombing abortion clinics. The KKK (a Christian organisation) were a genuine force for evil right into your lifetime.

Whilst I would replace your term "Christian" with 'professed-Christian', (as a real "Christian" follows the example of the life and actions of Christ), I would agree with what you say, however...

study the bible and find Gods word on exactly why that can be justified in His name.

Please show me where the bible allows Christians to justify killing or other forms of atrocity "in His name".

 

[Phil V]

Please show me where the bible allows Christians to justify killing or other forms of atrocity "in His name".

OK
Mass killings either performed by or sanctioned by your God from your book.
1. The Flood (Genesis 6-8)
2. The cities of the plain, including Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18-19)
3. The Egyptian firstborn sons during the Passover (Exodus 11-12)
4. The Canaanites under Moses and Joshua (Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21)
5. The Amalekites annihilated by Saul (1 Samuel 15)

And whilst I understand that many 'Christians' believe in the peace loving hippy version of Jesus, there are still plenty clinging onto Old Testament texts to support their homophobia, sexism, xenophobia etc.

As they don't agree with your version of Christianity I can see why you'd describe them as 'supposed christians' but I'd assert they'd say the same about you

 

[SFTPhotography]

I'd have sympathy with your stance against Muslim extremists, if you could just accept that they're not the only nutters out there,many they're not what is wrecking your country.

I accept that alright but I believe racical Islam as whole is a cancer, its spreading and killing and in western europe we still have time to prevent that happening.

 

[gramps]

OK
Mass killings either performed by or sanctioned by your God from your book.
1. The Flood (Genesis 6-8)
2. The cities of the plain, including Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18-19)
3. The Egyptian firstborn sons during the Passover (Exodus 11-12)
4. The Canaanites under Moses and Joshua (Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21)
5. The Amalekites annihilated by Saul (1 Samuel 15)

And whilst I understand that many 'Christians' believe in the peace loving hippy version of Jesus, there are still plenty clinging onto Old Testament texts to support their homophobia, sexism, xenophobia etc.

As they don't agree with your version of Christianity I can see why you'd describe them as 'supposed christians' but I'd assert they'd say the same about you

Well of course none of your 5 points refer to Christian times, hence do not provide evidence of justification for Christians committing atrocities in God's name ... if you don't accept that a "Christian", is a follower of Christ, what would you say a Christian is?
Christ preached and taught his followers to be peaceable and to seek peace (Matthew 5:9), to love their enemies (Matthew 5:44) and to be tolerant (Matthew 7:1).
Whilst many might chose to use the bible to justify their own actions, that does not mean that the bible's message supports their actions or that just because they use it they are Christians, in fact their actions condemn them (Matthew 7:21-23).

 

[Phil V]

I accept that alright but I believe racical Islam as whole is a cancer, its spreading and killing and in western europe we still have time to prevent that happening.

We don't disagree about that Steve, but the blinkered view that Islam = bad and Christianity = Good is utterly ridiculous.

Then we should look intelligently at the size of the actual risk, like I said, I'm not defending Islamist nutters, but in Western Europe you're much more likely to be killed by a non- religious terrorist, and even when it comes to religious terrorists, Islamists still aren't the greatest threat.

So we should really be thinking about why is this the subject we discuss frequently, who's driving that agenda, and why are they doing that?

Because asking those questions might just save us from a fate worse than death.

Whenever I read these threads I'm reminded of the joke:

A banker, a factory worker and a Muslim immigrant are sat in a restaurant, the waiter delivers 12 biscuits. Straight away, the banker takes 11 of them, then before anyone else can speak, he says to the factory worker; 'You should watch that Muslim, he's after your biscuit'

 

[the black fox]

OK
Mass killings either performed by or sanctioned by your God from your book.
1. The Flood (Genesis 6-8)
2. The cities of the plain, including Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18-19)
3. The Egyptian firstborn sons during the Passover (Exodus 11-12)
4. The Canaanites under Moses and Joshua (Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21)
5. The Amalekites annihilated by Saul (1 Samuel 15)

And whilst I understand that many 'Christians' believe in the peace loving hippy version of Jesus, there are still plenty clinging onto Old Testament texts to support their homophobia, sexism, xenophobia etc.

As they don't agree with your version of Christianity I can see why you'd describe them as 'supposed christians' but I'd assert they'd say the same about you

err correct me if i'm wrong phil ,but surely your quoting the wrong god from the wrong book ,as far as i'm aware christians are followers of jesus there religion didn't exist as such till circa the 2nd century a.d when it was taken up by the romans to hold together there failing empire .
if your going quote about christians in that context/time frame you might as well include the babylonians and assyrians to which brings us full circle somewhat ,in fact the whole region is full of a war thats been raging under the treetops for several thousand years ," by the rivers of babylon i lay me down " springs to mind

 

[Phil V]

Well of course none of your 5 points refer to Christian times, hence do not provide evidence of justification for Christians committing atrocities in God's name ... if you don't accept that a "Christian", is a follower of Christ, what would you say a Christian is?
Christ preached and taught his followers to be peaceable and to seek peace (Matthew 5:9), to love their enemies (Matthew 5:44) and to be tolerant (Matthew 7:1).
Whilst many might chose to use the bible to justify their own actions, that does not mean that the bible's message supports their actions or that just because they use it they are Christians, in fact their actions condemn them (Matthew 7:21-23).

Like I said, I appreciate that might be your take on Christianity, but there are plenty of 'Christians' clinging onto Old Testament teachings and they'd probably claim to be more Christian than you.