Comments on: But they’re just cartoons, right?

By: Tristan

Tristan — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:16:29 +0000

Jared “quotations with my fingers”:
Yeah, I think sometimes “political correctness” (now you’ve got me doing it) goes over the top. On the other hand, it is one way of not alienating people by how we talk, so it can be a good thing as long as it doesn’t overly diminish the _content_ of the statement by softening the verbiage. And yes, there is most definitely a double standard going on with these riots…

ACB: I’ve been having similar thoughts myself, although I didn’t know the cartoons were first published that long ago. The timing seems awfully good, doesn’t it?

The violence is totally reprehensible, but I understand the (overt) reason for the protests themselves: Rembember the artist who photographed a crucifix submerged in urine and named it “Piss Christ”? Or how about the artist who used pornographic images and elephant dung as part of his work, “The Holy Virgin Mary”? Christian groups protested outside the galleries, and in both cases people attacked the pictures themselves, attempting to destroy them and labeling them blasphemous. What about the pro-life extremist who shot a doctor who performed abortions in order to prevent him from killing more babies?

Granted, I think this is a different situation in some ways. I think one important difference is that in the art & abortion cases, only a few extremists participated, whereas in the cartoon case, the extremism seems to be widespread in the Islamic world.

Are these comparisons fair?

By: Tristan

Tristan — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:43:57 +0000

JBrock: Definitely — let’s keep the discussion going. Soon I’m going to publish Part II of that post. As for the men defining apologetics so far: Women, this is an official request… please come talk about apologetics with us!

By: aaron

aaron — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 22:45:21 +0000

interestingly enough, those cartoons were published in the danish press LAST OCTOBER. They were objected to by some Danish Muslim Clerics in November, but since then (almost 5 months later) there has been little if any anger over them until now . Furthermore, its been interesting that the UN and the US both have noted that the governments of Iran and Syria have been promoting and organizing protests in their countries. If I was the conspiratorial type, I’d say its just a islamic publicity stunt to get the attention off of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

By: Jared

Jared — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:20 +0000

I find myself quite conflicted by the whole cartoon controversy. While the whole “bomb in the turbin” likely wasn’t the most “politically correct” thing to print, it does represent how a large portion of the modern west views Palestinians (especially after this whole Hamas debacle), Syrians, etc. However, I largely think the middle east needs a “dose of its own medicine” as derogitory cartoons of the Jews are ROUTINELY run in their publications. Funny how it works when they do it, and they can burn down embassies when it’s done to them.
Just my “average joe” opinion.

Why do I suddenly feel like Chris “quotations with my fingers” Farley?

Pardon my spelling, I typed this out rather quickly.

By: jbrock

jbrock — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 04:25:13 +0000

I am not familiar with that debate.

However, I did want to draw attention to renewed discussion on the APOLOGETICS OF LOVE, Part I, a couple of threads back.

This discussion is key in reaching our culture for Christ and any opions, critiques, disagreements are obviously allowed and would be very welcome.

You have let three MEN define what LOVE is in apologetics and that is a scary thing in and of itself! :)