[Foundation-l] Racism in Commons

[Dan Rosenthal]

<begin excessive simplification>These silly "depictions of muhammed"  
things pop up ever so often. For example, CAIR raised a stink over the  
depiction of Muhammed as a judge in the US Supreme Court Building. The  
result? Too bad, so sad. Jyllands Postens controversy. Result? Lots of  
burning and riots, a few people hurt/killed, but it only served to  
spread the images. Teddy Bear named Muhammed....result? Teacher went  
back home, and Sudan's public image is again back down to where it was  
before the Darfur debate quieted down.</end excessive simplification>

My best guess is in about 3 years, we'll have something like Wikiart  
which will depict muhammed in a painting, some people will get riled  
up and raise a stink, and we'll be right back where we started. The  
important question then, is are we displaying images that people find  
offensive in spite of  the fact that the get offended, or are we  
displaying them because of  the fact they get offended? If it is the  
latter, we have a moral obligation to take them down, and question our  
own ethics. If it is the former, we have a duty to remain uncensored.

I fear that these cartoons in question (the ones of sharon) fit  
squarely into the latter.

-dan


On Dec 6, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Waerth wrote:
>> One of the things I learned was that: It is considered a gross  
>> insult to
>> depict the prophet Muhammed!
>>
> True enough, and to many non-Muslims the recent teddy-bear naming
> incident in Sudan was way over the top, and it has taken centuries for
> Christian countries to get over the point where blasphemy was  
> considered
> a serious sin.  I really don't support political correctness, Muslim  
> or
> otherwise.
>> So by depicting him you are already insulting the Islam. which is  
>> just
>> as heavy an insult to a Muslim as showing Blair's testicles is to  
>> some
>> Brits. So these matters are exactly the same.
> I'm sure that there are some people who would say that the only reason
> why you couldn't show Blair's testicles is that he didn't have  
> any. :-)
>
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l