LGF operative zombie has published a number of artistic depictions of Mohammed here, including the caricatures in question...and, believe it or not, a link to a South Park episode with Mohammed in it!
Posted by: Macker at January 31, 2006 09:09 AM
"Moslems: Lighten Up"
Good advice for the holier than thou in general.
Posted by: shortz at January 31, 2006 09:51 AM
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them."
Yeah, those crazy Muslims, and their perfectly accurate interpretation of the first commandment.
Posted by: Jacob at January 31, 2006 09:57 AM
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them."
This seems like a pretty clear-cut violation of the First Commandment (as interpreted by Islam, and, to a lesser extent, by Judaism), which would reasonably inspire some indignation in a devout Muslim.
On the other hand, its obviously still not something to kill over.
Also, your idea of virtue as definitionally voluntary seems to be out of accord with the stereotypical social conservative's stance on many issues, such as explicit media, homosexuality, or sex ed. Please elaborate.
Posted by: Jacob at January 31, 2006 10:08 AM
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them."
This seems like a pretty clear-cut violation of the First Commandment (as interpreted by Islam, and, to a lesser extent, by Judaism), which would reasonably inspire some indignation in a devout Muslim.
On the other hand, its obviously still not something to kill over.
Also, your idea of virtue as definitionally voluntary seems to be out of accord with the stereotypical social conservative's stance on many issues, such as explicit media, homosexuality, or sex ed. Please elaborate.
Posted by: Jacob at January 31, 2006 10:10 AM
It is difficult for one person to comprehend the depth of another's belief. Jews, Christians, and Muslims, all believe in the God of Abraham. But there has long disagreement about the end of days and the messiah. Some believe God will establish a kingdom on earth, some believe the kingdom is not of this world, and some hold it is their duty to establish the kingdom on earth.
This divisive issue may well have been the cause to split believers into the three major religions, and the issue continued to be divisive within each of them.
Those who truly believe man was created in the image of God, may realize the knowledge of God surpasses man's intellectual capacity and accept new truths as they are revealed to them. Those who believe they know better, may attempt to re-create God in the image of their own beliefs. Beliefs that have been long held will not be easily dismissed.
Posted by: omapian at January 31, 2006 10:16 AM
Jacob,
It is all in the free will aspect of God...he doesn't want automatons: if He did, he would have made us so. God wants people to voluntarily turn towards Him; to willingly join with Him and become truly free in the surrender of the self to something larger. This is what is actually meant by "you can't legislate morality": liberals take it to mean that you can't have any laws against immorality (a logically stupid position to hold), when what is actually means is "you can't legislate virtue". I cannot and must not force you to be virtuous - only in your voluntary action is there virtue or vice.
Too many Moslems seem to hold that in order for their to be virtue, vice must be suppressed - they've got it wrong: in order for their to be virtue, a person must have the option of engaging in vice.
Now, as regards your three issues:
1. Homosexuality. We condemn that which is immoral...which is not the fact of being gay, but the act of engaging in homosexual sex. This is condemned because it is inherently disordered as it deliberately cuts the sex act off from the possilibity of the gift of life.
2. Explicit media/sex ed. There is a difference between forcing someone to be good and allowing people to endless sucker others into being bad. What is wrong with the media is not that it portrays immorality - a necessary thing to do - but that it all too often glorifies it and, indeed, holds immorality up as superior to morality. Sex ed is often like this, too - not just educating the kids on the physical aspects of sex, but positively encouraging them to engage in casual, pre-marital sex using birth control (absurdly called "protection") as if rampant, valueless sex is anything other than soul-destroying for human beings.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at January 31, 2006 01:18 PM
" This is condemned because it is inherently disordered as it deliberately cuts the sex act off from the possilibity of the gift of life."
I don't think they're Deliberately cutting it off from life. That's incident to gay sex, but not something they deliberate over.
Posted by: shortz at January 31, 2006 01:46 PM
You remember the quote:
"Judge not lest ye be judged yourself."?
So, I take it that your are against condoms too... and since you seem to support media censorship... you are against free speech.
I agree, the media does go overboard when it comes to sex sometimes, but it is the responsibility of the parent, not the responsibility to the state, to prevent children from seeing questionable material before they are ready.
Now about sex ed, I, having grown up in Georgia, went through abstinence-based sex education that essentially said that you will have everything bad (short of hair growing on your palms and your eyes melting) happen to you if you have sex before marriage... and guess what... Kids at my school still had sex and, in a few circumstances, got pregnant because they did not know how to use a condom. Educating teenagers about sex should include teaching them to, if they so choose, have sex responsibly (ie: with reduced risk of pregnancy and transmission of disease). That means that they should tentatively teach how to use condoms. They should not condone premarital sex in the way that they teach communism yet don't condone it (in most circumstances).
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at January 31, 2006 02:40 PM
About the post in general, wouldn't you christians get offended if someone drew a cruel characature of Jesus??
Or (to the catholics) would you not get offended if someone drew a cruel interpritation of the Pope?
Then what type of standard are you holding these Muslims to?
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at January 31, 2006 02:44 PM
Uh, Jacob, Mohammed was supposedly a prophet (kinda like Reverend Moon, Joseph Smith, and L Ron Hubbard). He was never a deity. Drawing a cartoon of him wouldn't break any commandment.
Posted by: Bret Helm at January 31, 2006 03:02 PM
To Mark:
My question isn't so much why Christians condemn gay sex - I mean, it is right there in the Bible - but rather how a conservative Christian can support a law against sodomy and yet mock a law which prohibits drawing cartoons of Mohammed.
Although, to answer my own question, there is a substantial difference between legislating against thought and expression and legislating against action.
Posted by: Jacob at January 31, 2006 04:37 PM
"Then what type of standard are you holding these Muslims to?" Posted by: Georgia Frawg
A standard which doesn't involve gunmen storming an EU office or a trade boycott of an entire country just because some Danish newspaper printed a few cartoons of Muhammad. Good grief!
"BEIRUT, Lebanon - The controversy over Danish caricatures of Prophet Muhammad escalated Monday as gunmen seized an EU office in Gaza and Muslims appealed for a trade boycott of Danish products."
(via Faithfreedom.org:)
Punishment for insulting the prophet:
Partial Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38:
Prescribed Punishments-
Book 38, Number 4348:
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.
He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.
He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.
Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.
USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts
Posted by: Freedom1 at February 1, 2006 12:15 AM
"First they came for the funny ones"
Tribune Media Services, by Kathleen Parker
"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of political cartoonists. Not this time for the ones losing newspaper jobs, but for those whose lives are literally on the line thanks to outraged Islamists offering a bounty for their heads. The cartoonists in question are a dozen Danish artists who drew Muhammad-themed cartoons last September for the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten during an exercise to test the limits of free speech. The cartoon-a-thon was conceived in response to complaints from a Danish author who couldn't find anyone to illustrate her Muhammad children's book. Although the book itself was not controversial, the Muslim faith considers it blasphemy to depict the Prophet in any way. Thus, in December, the youth branch of Pakistan's largest religious party, Jamaat-e-Islami, offered a bounty for murdered cartoonists."
Posted by: Freedom1 at February 1, 2006 12:51 AM
About the post in general, wouldn't you christians get offended if someone drew a cruel characature of Jesus??
Or (to the catholics) would you not get offended if someone drew a cruel interpritation of the Pope?
Then what type of standard are you holding these Muslims to?
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at January 31, 2006 02:44 PM
Come on Georgia, you can do better than that! We have learned to not get offended until you tell us we can't pray, or say under God in the pledge, or read the Bible in a public school yard cause it might offend someone. We know and see disgusting, denigrating characatures of Jesus Christ, the pope, etc.etc. on a daily bases. Just blog for awhile over on Kos, or check out the rolling stone magizines to state some mild examples. Give me a break!
Posted by: bearmanUSMC at February 1, 2006 01:19 AM
shortz,
Think of it like this - it is disordered in the same way that masturbation is.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at February 1, 2006 04:09 AM
Jacob,
Well, some Christians support laws against sodomy, some don't - me, personally, I'd just change the law to prohibit forcible sodomy. The only thing Christians - and, indeed, all sensible people - are opposed to is judges usurping the ability of the people to decide these things...this is what upset us about Lawrence.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at February 1, 2006 04:13 AM
Georgia,
We get offended about all sorts of things - we just don't want to kill anyone over it.
As for sex ed - when you get older, you'll understand better how absurd it is to call a condom "protection".
Posted by: Mark Noonan at February 1, 2006 04:16 AM
the more interesting question is why, despite our affluence and scientific advancement, we continue to hold on to superstitious, irrational belief systems like religion. these belief systems must satisfy deep psychological and biological needs, or be very easy to adopt, perhaps partly explaining their persistence in human societies.
imagine someone would publish a mockery of the mathematical symbol for pi. would this offend mathematicians? do you think mathematicians around the world would call for a boycott of the country in which the mockery was published? of course not. this example illustrates a dimension on which science and religion diverge - namely the recognition that symbols are inherently arbitrary and meaningless representations of concepts. making this fundamental distinction between a symbol and its referrent seems to require an advanced level of thought.
an objective look at homosexuality as well reveals that it is the norm, rather than the exception in the animal kingdom. almost all ape species regularly engage in homosexual and non-procreative sex acts. in biological terms, sex is not simply for reproduction. sex serves important social functions. with a rudimentary understanding of darwinian natural selection processes, homosexuality is not at all surprising.
it is also simplistic to think of individuals in a given population as either "homosexual" or "heterosexual", the distrubution of sexual preferances is actually normally distrbuted, with the majority of individuals having both homo- and heterosexual tendencies.
religious doctrine denies natural diversity - which might explain its power in human societies where homogenous groups may be more succesfull in particular ecological niches.
Posted by: andy at February 1, 2006 11:39 AM
I still haven't seen the caricatures that have
these Muslims in such a snit.I'll tell you this.
if it were one of the other main religions,you'd get complaints(but that's about it). It always seems to be these Muslims,who always espouse violence whenever their feelings get hurt.If they want a Jihad, bring it on! They maybe able to hurt us(9/11)We, Russia & China, however have the power to end them. If it means saving 5 billion(and civilization) to eliminate a billion Muslims
Then so be it.
As to this anti gay thing I see so much here, I certainly hope you Homophobes don't eat shellfish,
as it too, is an abomination. Don't pick and choose your favorite sins to harp on. In other words don't "Judge,Lest Ye be Judged"!!
Posted by: keith at February 1, 2006 02:33 PM
French Editor Fired for Mohammad Cartoons
"The managing editor of France Soir, who published the Danish Mohammed cartoons as a gesture of support for free speech, has been fired, and the owner of the paper has issued a groveling apology."-(LGF)
(BBC news): France Soir originally said it had published the images in full to show “religious dogma” had no place in a secular society.
But late on Wednesday its owner, Raymond Lakah, said he had removed managing editor Jacques Lefranc “as a powerful sign of respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual”.
Mr Lakah said: “We express our regrets to the Muslim community and all people who were shocked by the publication.”
The president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM), Dalil Boubakeur, had described France Soir’s publication as an act of “real provocation towards the millions of Muslims living in France”.
Posted by: Freedom1 at February 1, 2006 11:57 PM
andy,
Sophomore in college, huh?
Posted by: Mark Noonan at February 2, 2006 03:47 AM
mark,
i am a phd student in cognitive neuroscience.
bring it.
Posted by: andy at February 2, 2006 07:26 AM
Go to http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/freespeech1 to sign a petition in support of Denmark.
Posted by: Holger at February 3, 2006 07:16 PM
LGF operative zombie has published a number of artistic depictions of Mohammed here, including the caricatures in question...and, believe it or not, a link to a South Park episode with Mohammed in it!
"Moslems: Lighten Up"
Good advice for the holier than thou in general.
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them."
Yeah, those crazy Muslims, and their perfectly accurate interpretation of the first commandment.
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them."
This seems like a pretty clear-cut violation of the First Commandment (as interpreted by Islam, and, to a lesser extent, by Judaism), which would reasonably inspire some indignation in a devout Muslim.
On the other hand, its obviously still not something to kill over.
Also, your idea of virtue as definitionally voluntary seems to be out of accord with the stereotypical social conservative's stance on many issues, such as explicit media, homosexuality, or sex ed. Please elaborate.
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them."
This seems like a pretty clear-cut violation of the First Commandment (as interpreted by Islam, and, to a lesser extent, by Judaism), which would reasonably inspire some indignation in a devout Muslim.
On the other hand, its obviously still not something to kill over.
Also, your idea of virtue as definitionally voluntary seems to be out of accord with the stereotypical social conservative's stance on many issues, such as explicit media, homosexuality, or sex ed. Please elaborate.
It is difficult for one person to comprehend the depth of another's belief. Jews, Christians, and Muslims, all believe in the God of Abraham. But there has long disagreement about the end of days and the messiah. Some believe God will establish a kingdom on earth, some believe the kingdom is not of this world, and some hold it is their duty to establish the kingdom on earth.
This divisive issue may well have been the cause to split believers into the three major religions, and the issue continued to be divisive within each of them.
Those who truly believe man was created in the image of God, may realize the knowledge of God surpasses man's intellectual capacity and accept new truths as they are revealed to them. Those who believe they know better, may attempt to re-create God in the image of their own beliefs. Beliefs that have been long held will not be easily dismissed.
Jacob,
It is all in the free will aspect of God...he doesn't want automatons: if He did, he would have made us so. God wants people to voluntarily turn towards Him; to willingly join with Him and become truly free in the surrender of the self to something larger. This is what is actually meant by "you can't legislate morality": liberals take it to mean that you can't have any laws against immorality (a logically stupid position to hold), when what is actually means is "you can't legislate virtue". I cannot and must not force you to be virtuous - only in your voluntary action is there virtue or vice.
Too many Moslems seem to hold that in order for their to be virtue, vice must be suppressed - they've got it wrong: in order for their to be virtue, a person must have the option of engaging in vice.
Now, as regards your three issues:
1. Homosexuality. We condemn that which is immoral...which is not the fact of being gay, but the act of engaging in homosexual sex. This is condemned because it is inherently disordered as it deliberately cuts the sex act off from the possilibity of the gift of life.
2. Explicit media/sex ed. There is a difference between forcing someone to be good and allowing people to endless sucker others into being bad. What is wrong with the media is not that it portrays immorality - a necessary thing to do - but that it all too often glorifies it and, indeed, holds immorality up as superior to morality. Sex ed is often like this, too - not just educating the kids on the physical aspects of sex, but positively encouraging them to engage in casual, pre-marital sex using birth control (absurdly called "protection") as if rampant, valueless sex is anything other than soul-destroying for human beings.
" This is condemned because it is inherently disordered as it deliberately cuts the sex act off from the possilibity of the gift of life."
I don't think they're Deliberately cutting it off from life. That's incident to gay sex, but not something they deliberate over.
You remember the quote:
"Judge not lest ye be judged yourself."?
So, I take it that your are against condoms too... and since you seem to support media censorship... you are against free speech.
I agree, the media does go overboard when it comes to sex sometimes, but it is the responsibility of the parent, not the responsibility to the state, to prevent children from seeing questionable material before they are ready.
Now about sex ed, I, having grown up in Georgia, went through abstinence-based sex education that essentially said that you will have everything bad (short of hair growing on your palms and your eyes melting) happen to you if you have sex before marriage... and guess what... Kids at my school still had sex and, in a few circumstances, got pregnant because they did not know how to use a condom. Educating teenagers about sex should include teaching them to, if they so choose, have sex responsibly (ie: with reduced risk of pregnancy and transmission of disease). That means that they should tentatively teach how to use condoms. They should not condone premarital sex in the way that they teach communism yet don't condone it (in most circumstances).
About the post in general, wouldn't you christians get offended if someone drew a cruel characature of Jesus??
Or (to the catholics) would you not get offended if someone drew a cruel interpritation of the Pope?
Then what type of standard are you holding these Muslims to?
Uh, Jacob, Mohammed was supposedly a prophet (kinda like Reverend Moon, Joseph Smith, and L Ron Hubbard). He was never a deity. Drawing a cartoon of him wouldn't break any commandment.
To Mark:
My question isn't so much why Christians condemn gay sex - I mean, it is right there in the Bible - but rather how a conservative Christian can support a law against sodomy and yet mock a law which prohibits drawing cartoons of Mohammed.
Although, to answer my own question, there is a substantial difference between legislating against thought and expression and legislating against action.
"Then what type of standard are you holding these Muslims to?" Posted by: Georgia Frawg
A standard which doesn't involve gunmen storming an EU office or a trade boycott of an entire country just because some Danish newspaper printed a few cartoons of Muhammad. Good grief!
"BEIRUT, Lebanon - The controversy over Danish caricatures of Prophet Muhammad escalated Monday as gunmen seized an EU office in Gaza and Muslims appealed for a trade boycott of Danish products."
(via Faithfreedom.org:)
Punishment for insulting the prophet:
Partial Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38:
Prescribed Punishments-
Book 38, Number 4348:
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.
He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.
He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.
Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.
USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts
"First they came for the funny ones"
Tribune Media Services, by Kathleen Parker
"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of political cartoonists. Not this time for the ones losing newspaper jobs, but for those whose lives are literally on the line thanks to outraged Islamists offering a bounty for their heads. The cartoonists in question are a dozen Danish artists who drew Muhammad-themed cartoons last September for the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten during an exercise to test the limits of free speech. The cartoon-a-thon was conceived in response to complaints from a Danish author who couldn't find anyone to illustrate her Muhammad children's book. Although the book itself was not controversial, the Muslim faith considers it blasphemy to depict the Prophet in any way. Thus, in December, the youth branch of Pakistan's largest religious party, Jamaat-e-Islami, offered a bounty for murdered cartoonists."
About the post in general, wouldn't you christians get offended if someone drew a cruel characature of Jesus??
Or (to the catholics) would you not get offended if someone drew a cruel interpritation of the Pope?
Then what type of standard are you holding these Muslims to?
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at January 31, 2006 02:44 PM
Come on Georgia, you can do better than that! We have learned to not get offended until you tell us we can't pray, or say under God in the pledge, or read the Bible in a public school yard cause it might offend someone. We know and see disgusting, denigrating characatures of Jesus Christ, the pope, etc.etc. on a daily bases. Just blog for awhile over on Kos, or check out the rolling stone magizines to state some mild examples. Give me a break!
shortz,
Think of it like this - it is disordered in the same way that masturbation is.
Jacob,
Well, some Christians support laws against sodomy, some don't - me, personally, I'd just change the law to prohibit forcible sodomy. The only thing Christians - and, indeed, all sensible people - are opposed to is judges usurping the ability of the people to decide these things...this is what upset us about Lawrence.
Georgia,
We get offended about all sorts of things - we just don't want to kill anyone over it.
As for sex ed - when you get older, you'll understand better how absurd it is to call a condom "protection".
the more interesting question is why, despite our affluence and scientific advancement, we continue to hold on to superstitious, irrational belief systems like religion. these belief systems must satisfy deep psychological and biological needs, or be very easy to adopt, perhaps partly explaining their persistence in human societies.
imagine someone would publish a mockery of the mathematical symbol for pi. would this offend mathematicians? do you think mathematicians around the world would call for a boycott of the country in which the mockery was published? of course not. this example illustrates a dimension on which science and religion diverge - namely the recognition that symbols are inherently arbitrary and meaningless representations of concepts. making this fundamental distinction between a symbol and its referrent seems to require an advanced level of thought.
an objective look at homosexuality as well reveals that it is the norm, rather than the exception in the animal kingdom. almost all ape species regularly engage in homosexual and non-procreative sex acts. in biological terms, sex is not simply for reproduction. sex serves important social functions. with a rudimentary understanding of darwinian natural selection processes, homosexuality is not at all surprising.
it is also simplistic to think of individuals in a given population as either "homosexual" or "heterosexual", the distrubution of sexual preferances is actually normally distrbuted, with the majority of individuals having both homo- and heterosexual tendencies.
religious doctrine denies natural diversity - which might explain its power in human societies where homogenous groups may be more succesfull in particular ecological niches.
I still haven't seen the caricatures that have
these Muslims in such a snit.I'll tell you this.
if it were one of the other main religions,you'd get complaints(but that's about it). It always seems to be these Muslims,who always espouse violence whenever their feelings get hurt.If they want a Jihad, bring it on! They maybe able to hurt us(9/11)We, Russia & China, however have the power to end them. If it means saving 5 billion(and civilization) to eliminate a billion Muslims
Then so be it.
As to this anti gay thing I see so much here, I certainly hope you Homophobes don't eat shellfish,
as it too, is an abomination. Don't pick and choose your favorite sins to harp on. In other words don't "Judge,Lest Ye be Judged"!!
French Editor Fired for Mohammad Cartoons
"The managing editor of France Soir, who published the Danish Mohammed cartoons as a gesture of support for free speech, has been fired, and the owner of the paper has issued a groveling apology."-(LGF)
(BBC news): France Soir originally said it had published the images in full to show “religious dogma” had no place in a secular society.
But late on Wednesday its owner, Raymond Lakah, said he had removed managing editor Jacques Lefranc “as a powerful sign of respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual”.
Mr Lakah said: “We express our regrets to the Muslim community and all people who were shocked by the publication.”
The president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM), Dalil Boubakeur, had described France Soir’s publication as an act of “real provocation towards the millions of Muslims living in France”.
andy,
Sophomore in college, huh?
mark,
i am a phd student in cognitive neuroscience.
bring it.
Go to http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/freespeech1 to sign a petition in support of Denmark.